1/1  E>  HAR.Y 

OF   THE 
U  N  IVLRSITY 
OF    ILLINOIS 


336,14 
Sa54c 
cop  .2 


I  •  H  •  o  • 


BULLETIN    OF  THE    UNIVERSITY   OF    WISCONSIN 

NO.    30. 

Economics,    Political   Science   and  History  Series,  Vol.  2,  No.  3,  pp.  263-392. 


CONGRESSIONAL  GRANTS  OF  LAND  IN  AID  OF 

RAILWAYS 


BY 


JOHN  BELL  SANBORN,   Ph.  D. 

AssistaJit  in  American  History,  Ohio  State  University. 


A   THESIS    SUBMITTED   FOR  THE   DEGREE   OF   DOCTOR   OF   PHILOSOPHY, 
UNIVERSITY   OF   WISCONSIN,    1899. 


Published  bi-monthly  by  authority  of  law  with  the  approval  of  the  Regents 

of  the  University  and  entered  at  the  post  office  at 

Madison  as  second-class  matter. 


MADISON,  WISCONSIN 
August,  1S99 


PRICE  50  CENTS 


,5f  c 


PREFACE. 


C£ 


The  investigation  which  has  resulted  in  this  monograph  was 

begun  in  the  seminary  in  American  History  of  1896-97  at  the 

University  of   Wisconsin,    and   continued   independently   since 

that  time.     In  its  present  form  it  was  submitted  as  a  thesis  for 

the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy  at  that  university  in  1899. 

£  A  portion  of  the  results  obtained  have  already  been  published 

~  in  volume  XII  of  the  Transactions  of  the  Wisconsin  Academy 

~-  of  Sciences,  Arts  and  Letters. 

The  subject  of  land  grants  in  aid  of  railways,  as  well  as  of 
i*- many  other  features  of  our  public  land  policy,  has  been  practi- 
cally neglected  by  historians.  I  found,  therefore,  that  my  work 
had  to  be  done  from  the  ground  up  and  that  an  investigation 
had  to  be  made  of  many  collateral  aspects  of  land  legislation. 
Some  aid  has  been  rendered  by  various  railroad  histories  and 
\  articles  on  the  public  lands,  but  in  general  only  the  original 
sources  have  been  used. 

I  have  endeavored  to  trace  the  history  of  railroad  land  grants 
$  from  their  inception  to  the  present  time.     In  this  my  object  has 
-^  been  to  give  an  account  of  the  various  land  grant  bills,  the  argu- 
ments for  and  against  them  and  the  forces  which  caused  their 
success  or  failure;  while  I  have  also  tried  to  connect  this  bare 
legislative  history  with  the  other  features  of  our  public  land  pol- 
-  icy.     In  addition  to  this  economic  side  of  the  subject,  on  the  po- 
litical side  the  influence  of  the  legislation  on  the  other  issues  of 
7  the  time  has  been  considered,  and  an  attempt  has  been  made  to 
point  out  what  seems  to  me  the  deeper  and  more  general  ini- 
: '  portance  of  my  subject. 

An  effort  was  made  to  determine  what  became  of  the  lands 
after  they  left  the  possession  of  the  government — how  the  states 


4  PREFACE. 

and  corporations  to  which  they  were  granted  disposed  of  them. 
But  the  materials  on  this  question  were  too  scanty  to  allow  of 
any  certainty  in  the  conclusions  reached,  although  I  have 
thought  it  advisable  to  embody  such  tentative  results  in  the  f  omi 
of  an  appendix.  I  hope  that  further  treatment  of  this  subject 
may  be  given  in  general  railroad  histories  of  the  different  states 
and  that  my  work  may  be  of  assistance  to  those  investigating  this 
subject. 

In  the  library  of  the  State  Historical  Society  of  Wisconsin 
have  been  found  most  of  the  materials  from  which  this  mono- 
graph has  been  prepared,  and  I  wish  to  express  my  appreciation 
of  the  unfailing  courtesy  of  the  officers  of  that  society  and  of 
the  members  of  the  library  staff.  Some  additional  materials 
were  found  in  the  Chicago  Public  Library,  The  Newbury  Li- 
brary and  the  library  of  the  Chicago  Historical  Society. 

During  my  work  on  this  monograph  I  have  been  under  con- 
stant obligation  to  Professor  F.  J.  Turner,  who  has  given  not 
only  advice  but  actual  assistance  at  every  point  in  my  investiga- 
tion and  in  the  preparation  of  my  work  for  the  press.  Profes- 
sor C.  H.  Haskins  has  read  the  proofs  and  made  many  valuable 
suggestions,  while  Professor  W.  H.  Hobbs  has  also  given  assist- 
ance in  the  proof-reading. 

Madison,  Wisconsin,  August,  1899. 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS. 


Introduction         .  .  .  .  .  .» 

Chapter       I.  —  The  Beginning  of  Land  Grants. 

Chapter     II.— The  Illinois  Central  Grant. 

Chapter  III. —The  East  against  the  West  — Land  Grants  and 
Homesteads.  .... 

Chapter     IV.  —  Later  Grants  to  States 

Chapter      V.  —  The  Pacific  Railroads. 

Chapter    VI.  —  The  Repeal  of  the  Land  Grants. 

Chapter  VII.  —  The  Disposal  of  the  Grants. 

Chapter  VIII.  —  Conclusion.  .  . 

Appendix     A.  —  The  Use  of  Railroad  Lands  by  States  and  Corpo 
rations.         ...  . 

Appendix     B.  —  Bibliography.  .  . 


PAGE. 

7 
19 
25 

38 
50 
62 
68 
76 
85 

93 

127 


CONGRESSIONAL  GRANTS  OF  LAND   IN  AID  OF 

RAILWAYS. 


INTRODUCTION.1 

Questions  relating  to  land  tenure,  and  particularly  to  the  man- 
agement and  disposal  of  lands  held  by  the  state,  have  always  oc- 
cupied a  large  place  in  the  history  of  nations.  In  the  case  of  the 
United  States  the  public  domain  has  been  a  most  important  factor 
in  the  national  development.  Aside  from  the  diplomatic  and 
military  struggles  involved  in  the  acquisition  of  the  soil,  and  the 
relation  of  the  slavery  struggle  to  the  public  domain,  the  position 
of  the  government  as  landed  proprietor  has  been  profoundly  im- 
portant. Even  in  colonial  days  the  management  of  the  vacant 
lands  by  the  crown,  the  proprietors  or  the  corporations  who  gov- 
erned the  colonies,  had  important  effects  in  political,  economic, 
and  social  development.  There,  as  later,  land  grants  were  used 
for  political  purposes  as  well  as  to  promote  immigration  and  in- 
dustrial development.  Colonial  history  affords  precedents  for  the 
use  of  land  as  bounties  for  soldiers,  for  education,  and  for  interna] 
improvements.  The  question  of  the  devolution  of  the  crown 
lands  after  the  declaration  of  independence,  became  one  of  the 
most  influential  factors  in  the  history  of  the  Revolution  and  the 
Confederation,  and  was  only  settled  by  thei  cessions  of  the  claim- 
ant states  and  by  the  passage  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787.  The 
vast  political  influence  of  the  land  question  upon  the  politics  of 
the  Confederation  has  frequently  been  pointed  out,  but  it  cannot 
be  too  strongly  urged.2    The   acquisition  of  the  public   domain 

'See  Sato.  History  of  the  Land  Question  in  the  United  States,  Johns  Hopkins 
University  Studies,  IV,  nos.  7,  8,  9. 

2"And  just  here  lies  the  Immense  significance  of  this  acquisition  of  the  Public 
Lands.  It  led  to  the  exercise  of  National  Sovereignty  in  the  sense  of  eminent 
domain,  a  power  totally  foreign  to  the  Articles  of  Confederation."  Adams.  Mary- 
land's Influence  upon  Land  Cessions  to  the  United  States,  Johns  Hopkins  Uni- 
versity Studies,  III,  no.  1,  p.  44. 

2  (-269) 


8  BULLETIN  OP  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  WISCONSIN. 

was  the  first  great  step  toward  national  unity — the  disposal  of 
this  domain  was  to  be  one  of  the  most  important  factors  in  the 
new  national  life. 

When  the  Constitutional  Convention  met  it  found  the  public 
land  question  settled  for  the  time.  Little  attention  was  paid  to 
the  power  which  Congress  should  have  over  the  lands  which  the 
government  then  owned  or  which  it  might  afterward  acquire. 
The  subject  was  touched  in  two  provisions  of  the  Constitution, 
the  first  that  "]STew  States  may  be  admitted  by  the  Congress  into 
this  Union,"  and  the  second  that  "The  Congress  shall  have  the 
power  to  dispose  of,  and  make  all  needful  rules  and  regulations 
respecting  the  territory  or  other  property  belonging  to  the 
United  States."3  The  latter  of  these  was  not  discussed  in  the 
convention  and  the  discussion  on  the  former  was  not  such  as  to 
throw  any  light  on  what  property  rights  the  government  had  in 
the  territory  from  which  these  new  states  were  to  be  formed  or 
on  the  question  whether  the  acquisition  of  new  territories  was 
contemplated.  Madison's  discussion  in  Number  4-3  of  the  Fed- 
eralist is  not  more  satisfactory,  the  only  point  touched  being  the 
prohibition  against  the  division  of  states  without  their  consent. 

It  is  unfortunate  that  as  regards  both  the  acquisition  and  the 
disposal  of  territory  the  Constitution  is  not  more  specific,  and 
that  a  contemporaneous  explanation  of  the  powers  of  Congress 
does  not  seem  to  have  been  made.  But,  wherever  in  the  Consti- 
tution the  right  to  acquire  territory  is  found,  the  public  domain 
has  grown  rapidly.  Originally  amounting  to  258,504,129  acres, 
by  the  various  purchases  and  cessions  it  has  been  increased  to 
over  1,800,000,000  acres.4    Of  course  the  actual  amount  of  land 

3  Art.  IV,  Sec.  3.  Acres. 

4State   cessions    258,504,129 

Louisiana  purchase,   1803    750,6S6,855 

Florida    purchase,    1819 35,264,500 

Mexican  cession,  1848   329,623,255 

Texas  purchase,  1850   62,266,953 

Gadsden  purchase,  1853    29,142,400 

Alaska  purchase,   1867    369,529,600 

Total     , 1,835,017,692 

Message  and  Documents,  Abridgment,  1897-98,  589.     The  figures  are  only  esti- 
mates, aa  much  of  the  territory  has  not  been  surveyed. 

(270) 


SANBORN" — RAILROAD    LAND    GRANTS.  9 

in  the  possession  of  the  government  at  no  time  amounted  to  this. 
Exclusive  of  Alaska  there  have  been  741,702,365  acres  of  land 
appropriated  and  132,441,774  acres  reserved,  leaving  591,343,- 
953  acres  vacant  at  the  present  time,5 

The  influence,  from  the  earliest  times,  of  the  comparatively 
small  public  domain  was  fundamentally  important ;  the  influence 
of  these  new  and  vaster  areas  which  came  into  the  possession  of 
the  government,  and  particularly  their  influence  upon  the  devel- 
opment of  the  West,  was  quite  as  marked. 

Some  consideration  of  the  methods  by  which  this  land  passed 
out  of  the  hands  of  the  government  must  first  be  given.  Of  these 
various  methods,  that  of  cash  sales  has  disposed  of  over  two  hun- 
dred million  acres.  The  different  grants  to  states,  except  those  in 
aid  of  railroads,  have  taken  more  than  one  hundred  and  sixty 
million  while  grants  to  railroads  and  homestead  entries  are  next 
on  the  list  with  a  little  over  one  hundred  million  each.  This  pro- 
portion is,  however,  only  a  temporary  one,  as  homestead  entries 
are  constantly  being  made  and  many  of  the  railroad  grants  are 
incomplete,  while  sales  and  state  grants  are  steadily  decreasing.9 

During  the  first  part  of  the  present  century  the  object  of  the 
administration  of  the  public  lands  was  to  obtain  as  large  a  rev- 
enue from  them  as  possible.  In  1796  an  act  was  passed  providing 
for  public  sale  of  the  lands  in  the  JSTorthwest  Territory  at  prices 
not  less  than  two  dollars  an  acre.  Credit  on  the  purchase  price 
could  be  given.  This  system  continued  with  some  modification 
up  to  1820,  when  the  credit  feature  was  abolished  and  the  price 

8  Ibid.,  591. 

•Cash    sales    214,414,395 

Homesteads    102,280,228 

Timber-culture  acts    16,118,228 

Military  bounty-land  warrants   60,252,790 

Script  locations    3,008,516 

Indian  allotments   560,780 

Donations     3,006,128 

Railroad,  wagon-road,  canal  and  river  improvement  grants  to  states 

and  corporations   106,584,898 

State  grants,  general  and  special 165,476,402 

Private  land  grants   70,000,000 

Total     ; 741,702,365 

Ibid.,  592. 

(271) 


10  BULLETIN  OP  THE  UNIVERSITY  OP  WISCONSIN. 

reduced  from  $2.00  to  $1.25  an  acre.7  The  size  of  the  tract? 
"which  were  sold  varied  from  time  to  time.  Before  1800  only 
■quarter  townships  and  sections  could  be  entered.  In  that  year 
the  minimum  was  reduced  to  a  half  section,  in  1804  to  a  quarter- 
section,  and  in  1820  to  a  half  quarter-section.  A  further  reduc- 
tion to  a  quarter  quarter-section  has  also  been  made.8 

In  1841  the  pre-emption  act  effected  a  considerable  change  in 
the  method  of  sale  by  giving  a  preference  to  actual  settlers,  and 
allowing  them  to  enter  the  land  at  a  minimum  or  double  mini- 
mum price.9  This  policy  of  pre-emption  dated  in  effect  from 
1830  when  an  act  allowing  pre-emption  for  one  year  was  passed. 
This  was  followed  by  extensions  from  year  to  year  until  the  per- 
manent law  was  enacted.10  While  these  temporary  acts  were  in- 
tended to  apply  only  to  those  who  settled  on  the  lands  before  the 
act  was  passed,  yet  the  practical  effect  was  to  encourage  squatters 
who  went  to  the  lands  in  the  expectation  that  similar  laws  would 
be  passed  for  their  relief.11 

Except  during  limited  periods  the  amount  received  from  the 
public  lands  has  not  been  great  in  comparison  with  that  received 
from  other  sources  of  revenue.  From  1816  to  1836  the  receipts 
from  customs  were  $454,317,403  and  from  the  public  lands 
$79,408,379,  and  in  1836  the  land  sales  reached  their  highest 
point,  amounting  to  $24,877,179  as  against  $23,409,940  from 
customs.12  Ag_a  business  investment  the  public  domain  hna  not, 
pajd  the  government 13  Yet  the  influence  of  the  lands  on  na- 
tional finances  was  much  greater  than  would  be  indicated  by  the 
amount  received  from  their  sale.  It  was  always  expected  that  a 
large  increase  in  this  amount  would  sooner  or  later  appear  and 
plans  were  discussed  for  hastening  the  time  when  their  sale 
would  cause  a  great  reduction  in  national  taxation. 

7  Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  Washington,  1884,  200,  202. 
"Sato,  Land  Question  in  the  United  States,  143. 

8  Ibid.,  159. 

10  Ibid.,  160-162. 

11  Ibid.,  162. 

"Reports  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  IV,  459. 

"In  1883  the  balance  against  the  government  on  account  of  the  public  lands 
stood  at  $126,428,484.  Hart,  The  Disposition  of  our  Public  Lands,  Quarterly 
Journal  of  Economics,  Jan.  18S7,  p.  174. 

(272) 


SANBORN — RAILROAD  LAND  GRANTS.  11 

In  addition  to  the  lands  which  were  held  for  sale,  grants  from 
the  public  domain  were  made  from  an  early  period.  In  1776  the 
Congress  provided  for  grants  of  land  to  soldiers  in  the  Conti- 
nental army.  This  principle  was  continued  in  regard  to  both 
the  War  of  1812  and  the  war  with  Mexico.  The  method  by 
which  these  grants  were  made  was  that  of  land  warrants,  to  be  lo- 
cated on  the  vacant  public  lands.14  Besides  these  general  grants 
to  private  persons  various  other  grants  of  a  private  nature  and  of 
a  very  miscellaneous  character  have  been  made.15 

The  regular  method  of  such  grants  was,  however,  to  the  differ- 
ent states.  All  of  the  public  land  states,  except  California,  re- 
ceived two,  three,  or  five  per  cent,  on  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sales 
of  their  public  lands.16  The  states  have  quite  generally  re- 
ceived the  swamp  and  overflowed  lands  within  their  limits  on  ac- 
count of  the  expense  which  was  necessary  to  reclaim  these  lands. 
The  enhanced  value  of  the  adjoining  public  lands  was  also  one  of 
the  reasons  for  these  grants.17  For  education,  the  states,  prior  to 
1848,  received  the  sixteenth  sections  and  after  that  date  the  six=. 
teenth  and  thirty-second  sections  of  their  public,  lands,18 

The  grants  which  were  the  predecessors  of  the  land  grants  in 
aid  of  railroads  were  those  made  to  the  states  in  aid  of  various  in- 
ternal improvements.  The  right  of  the  government  to  make 
money  grants  in  aid  of  internal  improvements  was  the  subject  of 
much  controversy,  but  portions  of  the  public  domain  were  often 
donated  in  aid  of  river  improvements,  wagon  roads,  and  canals. 
The  last  kind  of  grants  was  made  in  the  form  which  was  charac- 
teristic of  the  later  grants  in  aid  of  railroads.  By  this  method  of 
grant  the  alternate  sections  were  reserved  to  the  government  and 
by  their  rise  in  value  a  reimbursement  for  the  grant  was  ex- 
pected. One  of  the  grants,  that  for  the  Illinois  and  Michigan 
canal,  was  in  1833  transferred  to  a  railroad,  thus  making  the 
first  railroad   grant,  which   however  was  never   utilized  by   the 

"Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  232-37. 
15  Ibid.,  209-13. 
"Ibid.,  238. 
"  Ibid.,  219-21. 
18  Ibid..  223. 

(273) 


12  BULLETIN  OP  THE   UNIVERSITY  OF  WISCONSIN. 

state.19  After  1841  each  new  state  was  allowed  to  select  500,000 
acres  of  public  land  for  internal  improvements.20 

•Nearly,  all  of  the  states  chafed  under  their  inability  to  control 
the  large  tracts  of  public  lands  lying  within  their  borders  and  ap- 
pealed to  Congress  to  cede  to  them  these  lands.  This  request  wa? 
in  1832  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Manufactures,  of  which 
Henry  Clay  was  chairman.  He  reported  against  such  a  propo- 
sition as  unjust  to  the  old  states,  and  against  the  reduction  in 
price,  but  proposed  a  distribution  of  the  proceeds  of  the 
land  sales  among  the  states  in  proportion  to  their  federal 
population.  The  matter  was  then  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Public  Lands  which  reported  against  Clay's  plan 
as  the  equivalent  of  a  distribution  of  money  raised  from 
general  taxation,  and  favored  a  reduction  in  the  price  of 
the  lands  to  $1.00  an  acre.21  In  spite  of  this  report  Clay  in- 
troduced a  bill  on  the  lines  laid  down  in  his  report.  This  passed 
Congress  in  1837  but  was  vetoed  by  Jackson.  In  1836,  Calhoun 
made  almost  the  same  proposition,  although  clothed  in  different 
language.  This  was  to  deposit  with  the  states  a  pro  rata  share  of 
the  surplus  revenue  then_in  the  treasury.  __This  proposition  re- 
ceiyed_the  approval  of  Jackson  and  became  a  law.22 

The  money  Ihus  distributed  was  used  by  the  states,  at  their 
pleasure.  In  a  number  of  the  western  states  it  was  employed,  di- 
rectly or  indirectly,  for  internal  improvements,  but,  like  most  of 
the  state  investments  of  this  time,  it  was  very  generally  wasted. 
However  it  had  a  very  considerable  effect  on  the  internal  im- 
provement craze  of  that  time,  and  if  the  money  had  been  received 
later  it  would  probably  have  been  largely  employed  in  railroad 
building,  as  was  the  case  in  South  Carolina.23 

"While  not  mentioned  in  the  previous  platform,  Clay's  plan  for 
the  distribution  of  the  proceeds  of  land  sales  was  adopted 
as   a   part    of    the   party   platform   by   the   Whigs    after   the 

19  Ibid.,  257-01. 

20  Ibid..  255.     Revised  Statutes,  section  2378. 
"Schurz,  Henry  Clay,  I,  369-71. 

22  Von  Hoist,  Constitutional  History  of  the  United  States,  II,  1S6-8S. 

23  Bourne,  History  of  the  Surplus  Revenue  of  1837,  New  York,  18S5,  122-24. 

(274) 


SANBORN — RAILROAD    LAND    GRANTS.  13 

death  of  Harrison,  and  was  enacted  into  law  in  1841.  Only  one 
distribution  was  made  under  its  provisions;24  but  the  issue  was 
carried  over  into  subsequent  campaigns  by  the  platforms  of  both 
parties,  the  Whigs  declaring  for  the  idea  and  the  Democrats 
against  it.25 

This  outline  of  the  public  land  policy  of  the  United  States  in- 
dicates how  important  a  place  it  had  as  an  independent  ques- 
tion in  politics.  But  its  importance  in  relation  to  the  other 
questions  then  before  the  people  was  even  more  marked.  With 
regard  to  financial  questions  and  the  tariff  the  connection  was  par- 
ticularly <^losj?.  The  land  sales  formed  an  important  source  of 
revenue  and  their  increase  would  have  allowed  a  nearer  approx- 
imation to  free  trade,  while  their  diminution  or  diversion  in  the 
manner  proposed  by  Clay  would  have  made  necessary  an  increase 
in  the  tariff.  Thus  views  on  the  tariff  were  apt  to  color  views  on 
the  public  land  question. 

Besides  being  a  source  of  revenue,  the  public  lands  furnished 
a  fund  by  which  internal  improvements  could  be  carried  on.    The 
right  to  make    such  improvements  by    money    grants  had    by 
the  beginning  of  Jackson's  administration    come  to  be  quite 
generally    admitted.       But    in    1830    the   veto   of    the   Mays- 
ville    road  bill    checked  the    system  of    money    grants.      The 
public     lands    had    before    this    time    been    used    for    inter- 
nal improvements  and    after  the  denial  of  the    right  of  Con- 
gress to  appropriate  money  for  the  purpose  they  were  given  to 
the  states  and  to  corporations  in  large  quantities  for  this  purpose, 
their  most  extensive  use  being  for  railroads.    It  seems  quite  pos- 
sible that  if  this  substitute  for   appropriations  had  not   been  at 
hand,  the  pressure  on  Congress  would  have  been  strong  enough 
to  secure  money  instead  of  the  land  grants  which  were  actually 
made. 

The  question  of  the  power  of  Congress  over  the  public  domain 
was  also  affected  by  the  doctrines  of  state  sovereignty  held  by  the 
opposing  schools.    The  members  of  the  states'  rights  party  were 

"Schurz,  Henry  Clay,  II,  204,  210-212. 

^Stanwood,  History  of  Presidential  Elections,  4th  ed.,  149,  155.  169. 

(275) 


14  BULLETIN  OF  THE   UNIVERSITY  OP    WISCONSIN. 

inclined  to  restrict  the  power  to  narrow7  limits  and  to  make  much 
of  the  reservations  in  the  deeds  of  cession  from  the  states  in  re- 
gard to  the  purposes  to  which  the  land  was  to  be  applied.  On  the 
other  hand  those  favoring  the  exercise  of  wide  powers  on  the  part 
of  the  United  States  could  not  but  welcome  the  most  extreme  con- 
struction of  the  powers  of  the  government  over  the  public  lands. 
The  bearing  of  this  will  be  seen  in  the  debates  on  the  railroad 
grants,  where  the  Democrats  were  forced  to  find  the  power  to 
grant  in  the  position  of  the  government  as  land-owner  rather 
than  as  sovereign.  And  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  most 
famous  debate  on  state  sovereignty  grew  out  of  Foot's  resolution 
regarding  the  policy  of  the  government  in  the  sale  of  its  lands. 

What  was  the  connection  between  the  Public  Lands  and 
that  most  vital  of  ante-bellum  controversies,  slavery?  It  is  con- 
ceded that  this  was  almost  entirely  a  territorial  question,  and  that 
if  there  had  been  no  domain  into  which  its  extension  was  to  be 
allowed  or  prohibited,  the  history  of  the  United  States  would 
have  been  very  different.  But  aside  from  the  territorial  aspects 
of  the  case  the  influence  of  the  administration  of  the  public 
lands  upon  slavery  was  very  marked.  Had  the  government,  in- 
stead of  adopting  a  policy  which  favored  the  northern  settler  who 
desired  and  could  cultivate  only  a  small  tract  of  land,  favored  the 
creation  of  large  estates,  the  preponderance  of  the  free  states  in 
the  western  territory  would  not  have  been  so  quickly  secured. 
It  may  be  doubted  whether  any  system  of  settlement  would  have 
spread  slavery  north  of  the  old  Missouri  Compromise  line,  but 
the  spread  of  free  settlers  could  have  been  very  easily  checked  by 
a  different  system  of  the  land  administration.  Those  Southerners 
who  endeavored  to  hasten  the  settlement  and  sale  of  the  public 
lands  were  unwittingly  assisting  in  the  downfall  of  their  cher- 
ished institution. 

The  industrial  development  of  the  country  between  1800 
and  1850  helps  us  to  understand  the  form  taken  by  our 
land  policy  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  half  of  the  cen- 
tury.   In  1800,  two  hundred  years  after  the  first  settlement,  the 

(276) 


SANBORN — RAILROAD  LAND  GRANTS.  15 

population  of  the  United  States  was  confined  to  the  immediate 
vicinity  of  the  Atlantic  coast.  In  1850  the  line  of  settlement  had 
crossed  the  Mississippi  and  its  extension  to  the  shores  of  the  Pa- 
cific was  not  a  remote  possibility.  Early  in  the  century  enough 
settlers  had  crossed  the  mountains  to  secure  for  Ohio  in  1802  ad- 
mission as  a  state.  The  increase  of  western  population  by  1810 
was  quite  strongly  marked,  but  the  full  force  of  the  movement 
began  to  make  itself  felt  during  the  next  decade.  The  stream  of 
immigration  was  such  as  to  cause  fears  among  the  Eastern  states 
that  they  would  become  depopulated.  By  1S30  Indiana,  Illi- 
nois and  Missouri  had  each  passed  the  100,000  mark.  Practi- 
cally all  of  the  western  population  was,  however,  confined  to  the 
vicinity  of  the  large  rivers.  By  1840  a  large  increase  had  taken 
place  in  the  states  which  were  settled  earliest,  while  considerable 
numbers  of  settlers  had  entered  the  newer  states.26  The  spaces 
between  the  rivers  were  filling  up  and  considerable  settlements 
had  appeared  west  of  the  Mississippi.  In  1850  only  six  states 
exceeded  Indiana  in  the  number  of  their  inhabitants,  while  Ill- 
inois was  eleventh  among  the  states.  The  greatest  proportional 
increase  was  in  Wisconsin,  but  all  of  the  states  of  the  Missis- 
sippi valley  were  growing  with  great  rapidity.  While  all  por- 
tions of  these  states  were  receiving  settlers,  the  lines  of  densest 
populations  were  still  among  the  watercourses.27 

To  enable  these  settlers  to  reach  the  West,  and  to  furnish 
trade  communications  with  them,  improved  methods  of  trans- 
portation were  demanded.  At  first  this  demand  was  met  by 
turnpike  roads  and  the  improvement  of  the  waterways.  Around 
these  centered  the  plans  for  internal  improvements  proposed  up 
to  1830.  In  1806  work  was  begun  on  the  Cumberland  road  and 
in  1808  Gallatin  proposed  a  great  system  of  internal  improve- 

"Illlnois  had  increased  from  157,445  to  476,183.  Michigan  from  31,639  to 
212,267,  Indiana  from  343,031  to  685,866,  standing  tenth  among  all  the  states; 
Missouri  from  140,455  to  383,702,  Arkansas  from  30,388  to  97,574,  while  Wis- 
consin and  Iowa  appear  with  30,945  and  43,112,  respectively.  10th  Census, 
Population,  4. 

"See  McMaster,  History  of  the  United  States,  IV,  cb.  33  ;  and  10th  Census, 
Population,  xi,  ff. 

(277) 


16  BULLETIN  OF  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  WISCONSIN. 

ments,  including  not  only  canals  and  roads  along  the  coast  but 
roads  toward  the  west.  In  1817  the  passage  of  the  Bonus  bill 
was  intended  to  aid  transportation  to  the  interior,  but  its  object 
was  prevented  by  Madison's  veto.  Various  other  plans  were  pro- 
posed for  the  extension  of  roads  in  the  western  states,  the 
construction  of  canals  and  the  improvement  of  the  rivers,  but  no 
very  important  results  were  obtained  from  them.  In  1830  fur- 
ther aid  was  prevented  by  the  stand  taken  by  Jackson,  although 
the  public  lands  were  still  used  in  aid  of  canals. 

When  aid  for  improvements  could  not  be  secured  from  the 
government,  the  states  themselves  took  up  the  work.  In  1817 
New  York  had  begun  the  construction  of  the  Erie  Canal, 
which  was  finished  eight  years  later.  The  other  states  under- 
took similar  enterprises  but  in  most  cases  their  efforts  did  not 
attain  the  same  success  as  that  of  New  York.  The  failures  of 
the  western  states  were  particularly  noticeable.  Not  only  were 
the  results  obtained  insig-nificant,  but  the  states  were  driven  to  a 
repudiation  of  the  debts  incurred  on  behalf  of  the  improve- 
ments. This  further  led  to  a  distrust  in  the  ability  of  the  states 
to  engage  in  industrial  enterprises  and  many  state  constitutions 
practically  prohibited  further  attempts  of  this  nature  by  narrow 
restrictions  on  public  debts.28 

About  1830  the  railroad  began  to  supersede  the  turnpike  as  a 
means  of  transportation  where  rivers  could  not  be  used  and 
where  canals  were  impractical.  From  a  construction  of  forty 
miles  in  1830,  railroad  building  increased  rapidly  until  1,261 
miles  were  constructed  in  the  year  1850,  making  a  total  for  the 
country  of  8,571  miles.29  Of  course  a  great  part  of  this  mileage 
was  in  the  old  states.  By  1850  New  England  had  developed  its 
railway  system  in  its  main  outlines;  in  the  Middle  and  South  At- 
lantic states  the  method  in  which  the  railroad  systems  were  to 
grow  was  evident,  while  the  states  of  the  Mississippi  valley 
were  making  their  first  experiments  in  railroad  building.30    Nor 

13  H.  C.  Adams,  Public  Debts,  Part  III,  Ch.  II. 

i910th  Census,  IV,  289-90. 

80  Iladley,  Railroad  Transportation,  New  York,  1SS6,  36-37. 

(27S) 


SANBORN — RAILROAD  LAND  GRANTS.  17 

until  about  this  date  was  it  considered  that  railroads  would  sup- 
plant canals,  at  least  as  far  as  the  carriage  of  freight  was  con- 
cerned.31 

The  development  of  the  railroad  systems  in  the  states  along 
the  Mississippi,  of  course  depended  on  the  general  industrial  de- 
velopment of  that  section  of  the  country  and  on  the  movement 
of  population.  So  we  find  that  at  first  the  railroads,  as  well  as 
the  population,  tended  to  follow  the  rivers.  Water  was  to  be 
the  chief  means  of  transportation;  but  at  certain  places  and  for 
certain  portions  of  the  year  the  railroads  would  render  assistance 
to  the  rivers.  This  soon  changed,  however,  when  land  trans- 
portation came  to  be  regarded  as  independent  of  that  by  water, 
and  we  find  the  railroads  entering  into  the  thinly  populated  sec- 
tions between  the  large  rivers.  Finding  here  large  tracts  of  un- 
occupied public  land,  which  would  rise  in  value  if  the  settler 
could  be  brought  to  them,  it  was  to  be  expected  that  the  govern- 
ment would  be  asked  to  donate  a  part  of  this  land  in  aid  of  the 
railroads.  Particularly  was  this  the  case  since  the  new  states 
were  eager  that  the  federal  government  should  exchange  vacant 
land  for  settlers  and  that  the  same  beneficent  authority  should 
assist  in  improving  the  transportation  facilities  on  which  the 
prices  of  their  crops  depended. 

The  change  in  the  routes  of  commerce  is  well  illustrated  in 
the  loss  of  the  freight  business  which  was  sustained  by  the  Mis- 
sissippi just  prior  to  1850.  Products  which  had  before  passed 
down  this  river  and  to  New  Orleans  for  shipment  were  now 
sent  by  the  Great  Lakes,  and  later  by  the  trunk  lines  to  New 
York.  This  change  had  a  political  as  well  as  an  economic  influ- 
ence as  it  tended  to  separate  the  West  from  the  South  and  unite 
it  to  the  East,  a  situation  of  the  utmost  importance  in  the  conflict 
between  the  sections.32 

The  outcome  of  all  these  industrial  conditions,  toward  the 
close   of  the  first  half   of  this   century,    along  the   rivers,    the 

81  Ibid,  11-12. 

"See  Libby,  Significance  of  the  Lead  and  Shot  Trade  in  Early  Wisconsin  His- 
tory, Wisconsin  Historical  Collections,  XIII,  293-334. 

(279) 


18  BULLETIN  OF  THE   UNIVERSITY  OF  WISCONSIN. 

change  from  water  to  land  transportation,  and  the  prohibition  of 
state  activity,  led  the  railroads  to  seek  aid  in  the  only  way  left 
open  to  them,  grants  from  the  public  domain.  In  doing  this, 
they  simply  demanded  for  a  new  agency  of  transportation,  the 
government  aid  which  had  been  afforded  to  its  imperfect  pred- 
ecessors, the  canal  and  the  turnpike. 


(280) 


SANBORN — RAILROAD  LAND  GRANT8.  19 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE    BEGINNING    OF   LAND    GRANTS. 

The  grant  in  which  the  later  grants  to  railroads  may  be  said 
to  have  originated  was  that  in  aid  of  a  canal  in  Indiana.1  In  an 
amendment  to  this  the  alternate  section  principle  was  inaugu- 
rated,2 while  similar  grants  were  made  at  the  same  time  to  Ohio 
and  Illinois.  In  1833  the  grant  for  the  Illinois  and  Michigan 
canal  was  transferred  to  a  railroad,3  but  this  was  never  utilized 
except  in  connection  with  the  later  grant  in  aid  of  the  Illinois 
Central. 

The  right  of  way  through  the  public  lands  was  frequently 
granted  to  railroads  from  this  time  on,  but  such  grants  at  first 
carried  no  extra  donation  of  lands.  Sometimes  the  right  of  pre- 
emption was  given  the  railroad  company.  These  were,  however, 
in  no  sense  land  grants  and  so  have  not  been  considered  here. 

In  1835  a  memorial  from  Michigan  was  presented  to  Con- 
gress asking  for  a  grant  of  lands  in  aid  of  a  railroad  from  Detroit 
to  the  mouth  of  the  St.  Joseph  river.  No  definite  amount  or 
manner  of  grant  was  specified,4  and  no  action  was  taken  upon 
the  petition.  During  the  next  year  a  favorable  report  was  made 
on  a  bill  granting  alternate  sections  of  land  for  a  railroad  from 
Mobile  to  the  Tennessee  river.  The  increased  sale  of  the  public 
lands  which  would  result  from  the  construction  of  the  road  was 
given  as  a  reason  for  the  passage  of  the  bill.5  Later  in  the  year 
a  bill  granting  lands  for  a  road  from  Jefferson  City,  Missouri, 
to  the  Mississippi,  via  Little  Rock,  Arkansas,  was  also  favorably 
reported,6  but  no  action  on  either  bill  was  taken. 

1tStatutes  at  Large,  IV,  47. 

2  Ibid.,  23G. 

•  Ibid.,  G62. 

'Exec.  Does.,  2d  sess.  23d  Cong.,  No.  131. 

'Reports  of  Committees,  1st  sess.  24th  Cong.,  No.  607. 

«Ibid.,  No.   651. 

(281) 


20  BULLETIN   OP  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  WISCONSIN. 

In  1838  the  strongest  attempt  thus  far  was  made  to  secure  a 
land  grant.  This  was  for  a  road  from  ISTew  Albany,  Indiana,  to 
Mt.  Carmel  in  the  same  state.  A  favorable  report  was  made 
from  the  Senate  committee  on  Eoads  and  Canals,7  and  the  bill 
was  taken  up  in  the  Senate  on  June  6.  Smith  of  Indiana  made 
the  principal  speech  in  its  favor.  He  said  that  the  lands  along  the 
proposed  road  had  been  in  the  market  for  nearly  thirty  years 
without  finding  a  purchaser  and  that  the  road  would  render 
them  salable.  He  also  considered  the  carrying  of  the  mails  free, 
as  was  provided  in  the  bill,  a  full  equivalent  of  the  value  of  the 
lands.  Xiles,  of  Connecticut,  who  throughout  his  career  in 
Congress  was  the  consistent  antagonist  of  land  grants,  opposed 
the  bill  as  unconstitutional  and  as  being  a  bargain  with  a  corpo- 
ration. A  motion  to  strike  out  all  after  the  enacting  clause 
prevailed  by  a  vote  of  23  to  ll.8 

As  some  of  the  opposition  to  the  bill  arose  from  the  fact  that 
the  grant  was  made  directly  to  a  corporation  attempts  were  made 
later  in  the  session  to  amend  it  so  that  the  grant  would  be  made 
to  the  state.9  Nothing  was  done,  however,  nor  was  any  other 
important  action  taken  at  this  session.10  The  next  year  the  New 
Albany  and  Mt.  Carmel  bill  was  introduced  again  but  was 
amended  in  the  Senate  so  as  to  give  the  right  of  pre-emption 
only,11  and  although  in  IS 40  it  was  introduced  as  a  land  grant 
bill  in  the  House,  it  was  buried  in  the  committee  of  the  whole.12 
The  failure  to  secure  the  passage  of  this  bill  showed  that  the 
time  was  not  ripe  for  railroad  land  grants.  It  had  much  greater 
merit  than  many  roads  which  later  secured  grants.  New  Albany 
was  on  the  Ohio,  opposite  Louisville,  while  Mt.  Carmel  was  on 
the  "Wabash.  The  road  would,  it  was  claimed,  secure  a  passage 
around  the  low  water  of  the  lower  Ohio,  and  thus  afford  an  out- 

7  Sen.  Docs.,  2d  sess.  25th  Cong.,  No.  203. 

8  The  support  of  the  bill  came  from  the  South  and  West,  the  East  being  almost 
solidly  against  it.   Globe,  2d  sess.  25th  Cong.,  434. 

8  Ibid.,  450. 

10  For  other  reports  on   land-grant   bills,   on   which   no   action   was   taken,   see 
Ben.  Docs.,  2d  sess.  25th  Cong.,  Nos.  454,  455. 

11  Senate  Journal,  3d  sess.  25th  Cong.,  270. 
"House  Journal,  1st  sess.  26th  Cong.,  1128. 

(282) 


SANBORN — RAILROAD  LAND  GRANTS.  21 

let  for  the  products  of  Ohio,  Kentucky,  and  Indiana  to  the  Mis- 
sissippi and  thence  to  New  Orleans.13 

From  this  time  the  consideration  of  land  grants  disappeared 
from  Congress  until  1840,  when  the  request  came  from  a  south- 
ern state.     A  bill  was  introduced  making  a  grant  of  the  alter- 
nate odd-numbered  sections  for  five  miles  on  each  side  of  the  line 
for  a  road  from  Jackson,  Mississippi,  through  Brandon  to  the 
western  boundary  of  Alabama.     It  was  debated  in  the    Senate 
April  30th.      The  opposition    was  voiced  by    Bagby,  of    Ala- 
bama, on  the  ground  that  the  grant  was  the  same  as  a  money  ap- 
propriation for  internal  improvements  and  because  the  price  of 
the  lands  remaining  in  the  hands  of  the  government  along  the 
line  would  probably  be  raised.    Speight,  of  Mississippi,  said  that 
the  purpose  of  the  bill  was  to  enhance  the  value  of  the  remain- 
ing public  lands,  while  Calhoun  took  very  similar  grounds  when 
he  said  that  he  favored  the  bill  because  it  would  benefit  the  treas- 
ury.14    Yulee,  of  Florida,  favored  the  bill  because  Mississippi 
had  not  had  her  share  in  the  distribution  of  the  public  lands.15 
Haywood  remarked  that  if  the  principle  of  proportionate  distri- 
bution was  carried    out  the  old  states  should    have  their  share. 
To  this  Yulee  answered  that  it  was  on  account  of  the  exemption 
from  taxation  which  the  public  lands  had  enjoyed  that  a  share 
in  the  lands  was  due  the  new  states.16     The  Mississippi  bill  was 
ordered  read  a  third  time  by  a  vote  of  28  to  8,17  and  passed  the 
next  day.    It  was  not  brought  up  in  the  House.    The  arguments 
advanced  for  and  against  the  bill  were,  in  their  main  features,  fol- 
lowed in  subsequent  discussions  of  the  subject.     In  them  four 

13  See  Sen.  Docs.,  2d  sess.  25th  Cong.,  No.  203  ;  and  Sen.  Docs.,  3d  sess.  25th 
Cong.,  No.  49.  A  memorial  from  New  Orleans  merchants  accompanied  the  latter 
report.  For  the  Illinois  internal  improvement  scheme  of  1837,  with  which  this 
road  was  to  connect,  see  Moses,  Illinois,  Historical  and  Statistical,  I,  411.  As 
late  as  1849  the  Illinois  legislature  passed  resolutions  favoring  a  grant  to  the 
New  Albany  and  Mt.  Carmel  road.  Sen.  Misc.,  2d  sess.  30th  Cong.,  No.  3G.  The 
road  was  not  built  until  much  later. 

14  Globe,  1st  sess.  29th  Con.,  751. 

15  The  truth  of  this  position  is  not  clear.  Mississippi  received  the  usual  five 
per  cent,  of  the  proceeds  of  the  sale  of  her  public  lands  (Statutes  at  Large,  III, 
348),  and  one  of  the  first  grants  of  public  lands  for  education   (Ibid.,  II,  229). 

la  Globe,  1st  sess.  29th  Cong.,  752. 

"Ibid.  The  negative  votes  were  from  New  Hampshire  (2),  Connecticut, 
North  Carolina,  Georgia   (2),  Alabama,  and  Tennessee. 

(283) 


22  BULLETIN  OP  THE   UNIVERSITY  OF  WISCONSIN. 

ideas  are  prominent.  The  opponents  of  the  bill  called  it  an  inter- 
nal improvement  scheme,  and  objected  to  increasing  the  price  of 
the  lands;  those  favoring  it  claimed  that  it  was  a  positive  benefit 
to  the  treasury;  and  others  held  that  the  states  had  rights  to  a 
share  of  the  public  lands.  It  will  be  interesting  to  note  the  de- 
velopment of  these  lines  of  argument. 

The  first  session  of  the  thirtieth  Congress,  held  in  1847-48, 
barely  escaped  being  a  fruitful  one  in  land  grant  legislation.  A 
bill  was  introduced  making  a  grant  for  a  railroad  from  Hannibal, 
Missouri,  to  St.  Joseph.18  This  was  followed  by  one  making  a 
grant  to  Iowa  for  a  railroad  across  the  state,19  and  these  bills 
were  incorporated  with  a  bill  making  a  grant  for  a  railroad  from 
Mobile  to  the  mouth  of  the  Ohio,  and  with  one  making  a  grant 
for  a  road  from  Jackson  to  the  Alabama  state  line.20  This  very 
extensive  bill  passed  the  Senate  without  difficulty21  and  almost 
slipped  through  the  House.  When  it  reached  the  House  it  was 
ordered  read  a  third  time  without  division  and  almost  without 
discussion.22  This  was  only  two  days  after  it  had  passed  the 
Senate.  That  there  was  method  in  this  haste  seems  very  prob- 
able from  the  fact  that  the  next  dav  the  vote  was  reconsidered 
and  the  bill  laid  on  the  table,  102  to  80.  Of  the  New  England 
states,  New  Hampshire,  Massachusetts,  and  Connecticut  favored 
the  bill,  as  did  New  Jersey  and  Delaware  in  the  Middle  States, 
iiside  from  these  none  but  the  western  land  states  voted  in  its 
favor.23     In  the  West,  Ohio  and  Indiana  were  against  the  bill. 

18  Globe,  1st  sess.  SOth  Cong.,  728. 

19  Ibid.,  763. 
-°  Ibid.,  1051. 

21  The  vote  was  34  to  15,  the  negative  votes  being  from  Maine,  Vermont,  Con- 
necticut (2),  New  York  (2),  Maryland,  Virginia  (2),  South  Carolina,  Georgia, 
Florida,  Tennessee,  Kentucky,  Indiana,  Ibid. 

-  Ibid.,  1059.  For.  Against. 

23  New  England   9  10 

Middle    31  23 

South   28  9 

Gulf    5  5 

West  (land)    17  26 

West   (non-land)    12  7 

House  Journal,  1st  sess.  30th  Cong.,  1241.  In  this  classification  of  the  states, 
"Gulf"  includes  Florida  and  Alabama,  but  not  Texas  ;  the  western  non-land  states 
are  Texas,  Tennessee  and  Kentucky.  Thus  the  first  three  and  last  categories  are 
those  states  without  public  lands,  and  the  fourth  and  fifth  those  with  lands. 

(284) 


SANBORN — RAILROAD    LAND    GRANT8.  23 

The  only  other  land  grant  bill  of  importance  at  this  session 
was  the  Illinois  Central  grant,  which  will  be  considered  in  con- 
nection with  the  passage  of  that  act. 

The  tendency  of  population  to  follow  the  watercourses  dur- 
ing the  period  prior  to  1850  and  the  prevalence  of  the  idea  that 
railways  were  only  supplemental  to  rivers  and  canals  has  already 
been  noted.  This  is  well  illustrated  in  the  land  grant  legislation 
which  we  have  just  been  considering.  The  bills  which  received 
the  consideration  of  Congress  were  largely  for  roads  which  fol- 
lowed natural  watercourses  and  which  were  to  assist  these  water 
routes  during  seasons  of  low  water.  Yet  just  before  1850  a  de- 
cided change  may  be  observed.  In  the  first  session  of  the  thirty- 
first  Congress  only  four  bills  for  roads  of  this  character  were  in- 
troduced while  there  were  fifteen  bills  for  roads  connecting  sepa- 
rate waterways.  It  would  appear  that  if  the  requests  of  those 
asking  land  grants  were  agreed  to,  these  grants  would  materially 
assist  in  the  development  of  the  country  lying  between  the 
rivers. 

The  prospects  for  railroad  land  grants  cannot  be  said  to  have 
been  bright  at  the  close  of  the  thirtieth  Congress.     The  Senate 
was  willing  to  give  nearly  all  that  was  asked  but  the  House  was 
firm  in  its  position  against  the  grants.     The  cause  of  this  differ- 
ence in  sentiment  seems  to  have  been  the  greater  proportionate 
representation  of  the  new  states  in  the  former  body.     A  similar 
difference  in  the  two  houses  of  Congress  has  often  been  observed 
in  connection  with  other  questions  which  divided  the  country  on 
sectional  lines.     It  is  to  the  House  then,  that  we  must  look  in 
our  future  consideration  of  the  land  grant  question.     And  it  is 
this  body  which  is  the  most  difficult  to  study.     The  propensity 
of  the  Senate  to  debate  with  thoroughness  all  questions  which 
come  before  it  even  to  the  delay  of  important  public    business 
has  of  late   years  been  the  subject  of   much  unfavorable    com- 
ment.    But  whatever  the  defects  of  the  plan  from  the  point  of 
view  of  the  public  interest,  it  enables  the  student  of  the  consti- 
tutional history  of  the  period  to  learn  much  of  the  opinions  and 
motives  of  members  of  the  Senate.    In  the  House,  on  the  other 
3  (285) 


24  BULLETIN  OP  THE  UNIVERSITY  OP  WISCONSIN. 

hand,  debate,  even  in  the  period  now  under  consideration,  was 
much  restricted.  The  great  number  of  members  also  makes  a 
determination  of  the  causes  of  individual  action  much  more  dif- 
ficult than  in  the  case  of  the  Senate.  The  problem  which  is  be- 
fore us,  the  cause  of  the  changed  attitude  of  the  House,  and 
whether  that  change  was  one  of  permanent  sentiment  or  due  to 
temporary  political  causes,  must  be  considered  in  the  succeeding 
chapters. 


(286) 


SANBORN — RAILROAD    LAND    GRANT8.  25 


CHAPTER  n. 

THE    ILLINOIS    CENTRAL   GRANT. 

The  first  bill  to  force  its  way  through  the  opposition  of  the 
House  was  that  granting  lands  to  Illinois,  Mississippi,  and  Ala- 
bama, in  aid  of  the  Illinois  Central  and  Mobile  and  Ohio  rail- 
roads. Aside  from  the  amount  of  land  granted,  this  bill  was  of 
special  importance  from  its  position  as  pioneer.  The  precedent 
once  established,  the  path  of  the  other  bills  was  rendered  easier, 
for  the  benefits  which  had  been  secured  to  the  three  states  were 
with  much  justice  demanded  by  the  other  land  states.  Illinois 
had  received  land,  and  why  should  not  also  Iowa?  A  separate 
consideration  of  the  Illinois  Central  bill  with  a  Anew  to  deter- 
mining the  forces  which  secured  its  passage  is  therefore  neces- 
sary at  this  point  in  the  history  of  railroad  land  grants. 

As  earlv  as  1844,  Senator  Breese  had  endeavored  to  secure 
for  the  Great  Western  Railway  company  of  Illinois  the  right  of 
pre-emption  of  the  public  lands  along  its  line.  He  considered 
that  right  of  as  much  practical  value  as  a  grant  to  the  state  in 
aid  of  the  road  would  have  been,  especially  as  there  seemed  no 
hope  of  securing  such  a  grant.  In  this  he  was  opposed  by 
Stephen  A.  Douglas,  then  a  representative  from  Illinois  in  the 
House,  who  believed  that  the  chances  of  securing  a  grant  to  the 
state  were  good  and  that  to  ask  for  the  pre-emption  right  would 
embarrass  efforts  to  secure  a  grant  at  some  other  time.1  But  in 
1846,  Breese,  then  chairman  of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Public 
Lands,  introduced  a  bill  granting  alternate  sections  of  the  pub- 
lic lands  in  aid  of  the   Northern  Cross  and    Central  railroads.3 


1  Douglas  to  Breese,  Jan.  5.  1851.  Springfield  Daily  Register,  Jan.  20,  1851. 
Reprinted  in  Fergus  Hist.  Ser.,  No.  23,  pp.  66-7. 

2Globe>,  1st  sess.  29th  Cong.,  208.  The  Northern  Cross  road  was  from  Quincy 
to  the  Indiana  line. 

(287) 


26  BULLETIN   OF  THE   UNIVERSITY  OF   WISCONSIN. 

He  did  not  have  much  faith  in  this  bill  for  it  was  never  called 
up,  and  at  the  second  session  of  this  Congress  he  again  intro- 
duced his  pre-emption  bill,  which  did  not  pass. 

In  the  fall  of  1847,  Douglas,  then  thirty-three  years  of  age, 
entered  the  Senate.  "With  his  appearance  the  situation  was  ma- 
terially changed.  His  marked  political  ability  had  already  won 
for  him  a  high  place  in  the  Democratic  party.  As  a  practical 
politician,  skilled  in  the  manipulation  of  men  for  the  benefit  of 
his  own  or  his  party's  measures,  he  has  probably  not  been  ex- 
celled by  any  other  American.  As  a  debater  he  was  adroit 
rather  than  deep,  and  his  well-known  speeches  on  Kansas  and  in 
his  debates  with  Lincoln  show  his  great  skill  in  the  favorable  ex- 
pression of  his  side  of  the  question.  Yet  it  would  be  unjust  to 
consider  him  as  working  merely  for  the  sake  of  the  party  spoils. 
He  had  large  views  as  to  the  future  of  his  country  and  particu- 
larly his  section  of  it.  His  faith  was  in  the  speedy  develop- 
ment of  the  West,  and  in  that  he  was  anxious  to  assist.  Even 
beyond  this  he  believed  in  "manifest  destiny;"  at  present  he 
would  have  been  called  an  "imperialist."  A  bill  which  enlisted 
his  personal  approval  and  which  did  not  run  counter  to  the  posi- 
tion of  his  party  was  sure  of  his  hearty  support  and  by  that  sup- 
port was  placed  very  near  success.3 

Not  only  was  he  in  hearty  accord  with  the  principles  of  the 
grant  for  the  Illinois  Central,  but  he  seems  to  have  been  the  chief 
supporter  of  that  measure.  Breese  favored  the  securing  of  the 
right  of  pre-emption  and  considered  the  attempts  to  secure  a 
grant  only  wasted  energy.  In  accordance  with  this,  belief,  he  in- 
troduced a  pre-emption  bill,  a  move  which  received  the  severe 
criticism  of  Douglas,  who  felt  the  weakness  of  their  divided  po- 
sition and  thought  that  Congress  could  hardly  be  expected  to 
donate  lands  to  Illinois  when  one  of  her  senators  only  asked  the 
right  of  pre-emption  of  those  same  lands.  Breese,  however, 
said  that  he  only  wished  to  have  the  pre-emption  bill  on  the  cal- 
endar to  call  up  after  the  anticipated  failure  of  the  land  grant.4 

sFor  a  good  characterization  of  Douglas,  see  Rhodes,  History  of  United,  States, 
I,  244-6. 

*  Douglas  to  Breese,  Jan.  5,  1S51,  1.  c.  pp.  69-73. 

(288) 


SANBORN — RAILROAD  LAND  GRANTS.  27 

It  would  seem  probable  that  the  moral  effect  of  the  division  of 
the  Illinois  senators  on  the  fate  of  the  bill  was  considerable. 

Both  introduced  bills  in  accordance  with  their  ideas,  but 
Douglas  made  an  important  modification  in  the  one  which  he  put 
forward.  The  Central  road  of  the  previous  bills  had  been  from 
Galena  to  Cairo,  following  the  great  natural  waterway  of  the 
Mississippi  and  the  route  which  western  commerce  had  up  to 
this  time  taken.  Douglas  modified  this  by  a  "branch"  from 
Centralia  to  Chicago.  By  so  doing  he  believed  that  he  would 
strengthen  the  bill  by  connecting  with  it  the  Eastern  interests 
of  the  Great  Lakes  and  the  roads  then  building  toward  Chicago.5 
Politically  the  idea  was  an  excellent  one,  but  Douglas  may  also 
have  forseen  the  current  of  commercial  development,  in  the  path 
of  which  he  desired  to  place  himself. 

This  bill  came  up  as  a  special  order  May  3,  1848.  A  disagree- 
ment as  to  the  carrying  of  the  mails  by  the  road  was  settled  by 
providing  that  the  United  States  District  Judge  was  to  fix  the 
rate.0  ISTiles  then  opened  the  opposition  to  the  bill  by  declar- 
ing that  Congress  had  no  power  to  carry  on  internal  improve- 
ments and  that  a  grant  of  lands  was  only  an  evasion  of  the  Con- 
stitution.7 Crittenden,  of  Kentucky,  and  Bagby,  of  Alabama, 
discussed  the  constitutionality  of  the  bill  at  some  length.  The 
former  considered  the  right  of  Congress  to  grant  lands  settled  by 
precedent,  while  the  latter  did  not  think  that  constitutional 
questions  could  be  settled  that  way.8  The  discussion  took 
another  turn  when  Butler,  of  Carolina,  claimed  that  the  West 
would  receive  all  the  benefit  from  such  a  law.  Crittenden  re- 
plied that  it  was  no  more  than  was  due  the  West  as  the  East  had 
received  all  the  benefit  from  appropriations  for  forts  and  cus- 
tom houses.0  Cass  supported  the  bill  on  the  theory  that  the  gov- 
ernment, as  a  land-owner,  could  dispose  of  its  lands  as  it  saw  fit 

6  Ibid.,  69. 

«Olobc,  1st  sc-ss.  20th  Cong..  App.,  534-5. 

'"To  say  that  we  car.  get  round  the  Constitution  by  granting  the  public  lands, 
instead  of  taking  the  money  directly  out  of  the  treasury,  is  certainly  trifling 
With  the  judgment  of  this  body."     Ibi<L,  App.,    535. 

8  Ibid. 

8  Ibid.,  App..  536. 

(289) 


28  BULLETIN  OF  THE   UNIVERSITY  OF  WISCONSIN. 

and  do  what  it  could  to  enhance  the  value  of  those  lands.10  Cal- 
houn followed  with  almost  the  same  argument  of  financial  bene- 
fit which  he  had  once  before  used.11 

These  arguments  have  been  heard  before  but  are  here  devel- 
oped into  their  final  form.  To  one  who  interprets  the  Constitu- 
tion as  loosely  as  most  of  us  do  at  the  present  time  neither  of  the 
arguments  seems  sound.  Congress  can  "dispose  of"  the  public 
lands.  That  seems  ample  authority  for  a  grant  in  aid  of  rail- 
roads, but  to  the  strict  constructionist  of  ante-bellum  days  this 
"dispose  of"  was  limited  by  his  general  theory  of  the  provinces 
of  the  federal  government  and  the  states.  The  public  lands 
were  also  a  source  of  revenue  and  to  give  them  away  would  to 
that  extent  decrease  the  amount  received  from  that  direction 
and  correspondingly  increase  taxation.  Granting  the  interpre- 
tation of  the  Constitution  which  preceded  it,  Xiles'  argument 
seems  sound.  As  the  advocates  of  the  bill  held  the  same  con- 
stitutional principles,  they  met  it  the  only  way  open  to  them — 
by  providing  a  return  for  the  lands  granted.  This  return  was  in 
the  increase  in  the  price  of  the  lands  and  was  to  correspond  ex- 
actly to  the  value  of  the  lands  granted.  This  resembles  more  a 
temporary  expedient  for  meeting  a  constitutional  difficulty  than 
a  true  principle  of  interpretation.  If  the  Democratic  reading 
of  the  Constitution  on  internal  improvements  was  the  correct 
one,  their  argument  in  favor  of  land  grants  was  a  mere  evasion 
of  tKat  document  under  an  ingenious  and  plausible  juggling  of 
words.     The  true  basis  of  land  grants  was  national  benefit,  but 

10  "The  Federal  government  is  a  great  land-owner  ;  it  possesses  an  extensive  pub- 
lic domain  ;  and  we  have  the  power  under  the  Constitution  to  dispose  of  that  do- 
main ;  and  a  very  unlimited  power  it  is.  The  simple  question  is,  what  disposi- 
tion we  may  make  of  the  public  lands?  .  .  .  We  may  bestow  them  for  school 
purposes,  or  we  may  bestow  a  portion  for  the  purpose  of  improving  the  value  of 
the  rest."     Ibid.,  App.,  536. 

""The  question  in  this  case  is  a  very  simple  one.  We  are  authorized  by  the 
Constitution  to  dispose  of  the  public  lands.  Here  is  a  public  improvement  .  .  . 
by  which  the  value  of  the  public  lands  would  be  enhanced.  If  then,  it  will  add 
to  the  value,  ought  we  not  to  contribute  to  it  ...  ?  I  do  not  think  that  there 
Is  a  principle  more  perfectly  clear  from  doubt  than  this  one  is.  It  does  not  be- 
long to  the  category  of  internal  improvements  at  all.  It  is  not  a  power  claimed 
by  the  government  as  a  government.  It  belongs  to  the  government  as  a  land 
proprietor.  And  I  will  add  that  it  is  not  only  a  right  but  a  duty  and  an  im- 
portant duty."     Ibid.,  App.,  537. 

(290) 


SANBORN — RAILROAD  LAND  GRANTS.  29 

to  take  this  ground  required  an  extension  of  the  "general  wel- 
fare" clause  which  few  at  that  time  were  willing  to  make. 

The  bill  was  ordered  read  a  third  time  by  a  vote  of  24  to  11. 
The  states  with  public  lands  cast  14  votes  for  and  3  against  it 
while  from  thel  states  without  lands  10  votes  were  cast  for  and  8 
against.  The  opposition  came  chiefly  from  New  England  and 
the  South,  while  the  West  voted  solidly  for  it.12  The  measure 
was  supported  by  both  parties,  the  Democrats  voting  14  for  and 
10  against,  and  the  Whigs  10  for  and  1  against. 

In  the  House  the  bill  came  up  August  12.  Callamer,  of  Ver- 
mont, thought  that  the  company  ought  not  to  be  allowed  to  go 
off  its  line  for  the  selection  of  lands,  and  offered  an  amendment 
to  that  effect  which  was  adopted.  Under  the  previous  question 
a  vote  was  then  taken  and  a  third  reading  refused,  74  to  78 
according  to  the  Globe13  or  73  to  79  according  to  the  Jour- 
nal1* The  South  furnished  most  of  the  opposition;  nearly 
all  of  the  Middle  States  were  divided,  while  in  the  West 
Ohio  cast  9  votes  against  the  bill.15  On  party  lines  the  vote 
stood  30  Democrats  for  and  42  against  the  bill,  and  43  Whigs 
for  and  37  against.  Here,  as  in  the  Senate,  the  bill  was  rather 
more  of  a  Whig  than  a  Democratic  measure,  but  party  lines  were 
not  closely  drawn.  It  must  also  be  remembered  that  the  chief 
sponsor  of  the  bill  was  a  leading  Democrat.     An  attempt   was 


For.  Against. 

12  New    England    2  3 

Middle    2  1 

South    2  3 

Gulf    4  3 

West    (land)    10  0 

West   (non-land)    4  1 

Senate  Journal,  1st  sess.    30th  Cong.,  314. 

"Globe,  1st  sess.    30th  Cong.,  1071. 

14Hou3e  Journal,  1st  sess.    30th  Cong.,  1270. 

For.  Against. 

"  New    England    10  5 

Middle  25  22 

South     7  31 

Gulf     3  4 

West   (land)    27  9 

West  (non-land)   1  8 

Ibid. 

(291) 


30  BULLETIN  OF  THE   UNIVERSITY  OP  WISCONSIN. 

made  to  reconsider  the  vote  the  following  day  but  the  motion 
was  laid  on  the  table  78  to  64.16  , 

In  asking  why  the  bill  failed  to  pass,  we  must  remember  the 
problem  which  confronted  the  advocates  of  the  bill  in  their  en- 
deavor to  secure  favorable  action  by  the  House,  and  the  differ- 
ence between  the  conditions  there  and  in  the  Senate.  In  the 
House  the  members  from  the  states  which  contained  public  lands 
were  largely  in  the  minority  while  in  the  Senate  the  representa- 
tion from  the  two  sections  was  almost  the  same,  the  non-land 
states  having  140  representatives  as  against  90  from  the  land 
states  and  32  senators  as  against  28.  A  very  few  votes  from  the 
old  states  would  pass  such  a  bill  in  the  Senate  but  a  considerable 
number  must  be  secured  in  order  to  achieve  success  in  the  House. 
It  would  be  incorrect  to  represent  the  matter  as  entirely  a  sec- 
tional one,  but  in  general  the  interests  of  the  old  and  new  parts 
of  the  country  were  diverse  when  questions  of  land  policy  were 
concerned.  It  was  therefore  necessary  to  win  over  a  number  of 
members  from  the  non-land  states,  and  the  friends  of  the  Illinois 
Central  bill  had  as  yet  failed  to  do  this.  Influences  were  al- 
readv  at  work  in  this  direction.  Some  of  the  eastern  mem- 
bers  may  have  been  influenced  by  their  western  interests,  but 
the  growing  connections  between  the  East  and  the  Mississippi 
valley  acted  with  the  most  power  in  securing  eastern  votes  for 
western  enterprises. 

At  the  short  session  of  the  Congress  Breese  secured  action  on 
his  pre-emption  bill,  which  passed  the  Senate  without  opposition. 
Douglas  stated  that  he  withdrew  his  opposition  to  the  bill  on  the 
understanding  that  it  could  not  pass  the  House.17  It,  however, 
almost  became  a  law,  but  the  close  of  the  session  prevented  de- 
cisive action.18 

Breese  was  succeeded  in  the  thirty-first  Congress  by  General 

10  Douglas  was  in  error  when  he  stated  In  his  letter  to  Breese  of  Jan.  5,  1851, 
that  the  bill  was  laid  on  the  table  in  the  House. 

"  Douglas  to  Breese,  Jan.  5.,  1851,  1.  c,  74.  Compare  Breese  to  Douglas,  Jan. 
25,  1851,  Springfield  Weekly  Register,  Feb.  6,  1861.  Reprinted  in  Fergus  Hist. 
Ber.,  No.  23,  pp.  76-89. 

18  See  House  Journal,  2d  sess.  30th  Cong.,  537,  670 ;  compare  Glooe,  2d  sess. 
30th    Cong.,   616,   698. 

(292) 


SANBORN — RAILROAD  LAND  GRANTS.  31 

Shields,  who  was  not  apt  to  be  of  great  assistance  in  any  matter 
requiring  delicate  political  management,  but  who  would  at  least 
not  hinder  Douglas  in  the  efforts  which  he  might  make  towards 
a  land  grant  for  the  Illinois  Central.  Felch,  of  Michigan,  suc- 
ceeded Breese  as  chairman  of  the  committee  on  Public  Lands. 
At  the  beginning  of  the  session  Douglas  introduced  a  bill  sim- 
ilar to  the  one  which  had  previously  passed  the  Senate.  When 
it  was  called  up  for  consideration,  King,  of  Alabama,  introduced 
an  amendment  making  a  similar  grant  to  Alabama  and  Missis- 
sippi for  a  road  from  Mobile  to  the  mouth  of  the  Ohio.19  This 
amendment  was  not  simply  the  insertion  of  a  separate  grant  but 
the  continuation  of  the  previous  grant  to  the  Gulf,  thus  increas- 
ing the  national  importance  of  the  undertaking  and  tending  to 
secure  the  support  of  the  South  as  well  as  of  the  West. 

The  first  opposition  to  the  bill  came  from  Walker,  of  Wiscon- 
sin, who  considered  it  a  tax  on  the  settlers  for  the  benefit  of  the 
railroads.  He  said  that  he  favored  granting  the  lands  to  the  set- 
tlers themselves,20  and  moved  to  strike  out  that  part  of  the  bill 
increasing  the  price  of  the  sections  reserved  to  the  government, 
but  as  this  increase  in  price  was  the  essential  feature  of  the  "land- 
owner1' theory  of  land  grants  the  amendment  was  rejected.21 
Walker's  position  was  that  which  was  finding  expression  at  this 
time  in  the  movement  for  the  homestead  bill,  and  shows  the  an- 
tagonism between  that  system  and  the  grants  for  railroads.  A 
more  detailed  examination  of  the  conflict  between  the  two  sys- 
tems will  be  made  later,  but  we(  may  note  at  this  point  that  such 
a  division  between  the  members  from  the  land  states  argued  ill 
for  the  success  of  either  measure.    But  as  Walker's  plan  did  not 

18  Globe,  lBt  sess.  31st  Cong.,  845.  The  statement  by  Douglas  that  this  amend- 
ment was  made  at  his  suggestion  may  have  some  truth,  but  the  greater  part 
ef  the  story  is  manifestly  improbable.  The  value  of  the  book  by  Cutts,  Short 
Treatise  on  Constitutional  and  Party  Questions,  is  discussed  in  Appendix  B. 

20  "It  amounts,  then,  to  a  tax  upon  the  actual  settlers  to  that  amount  [$1.25  an 
acre,  the  increase  in  the  price  of  the  lands  under  the  bill]  in  order  to  build  the 
road.  This  is  one  of  the  greatest  embarrassments  to  the  settlement  of  the  new 
states.  I  know  of  nothing  that  would  embarrass  the  settlement  of  these  states 
more  than  increasing  the  price  of  the  public  lands.  ...  I  am  in  favor  of 
granting  the  whole  of  this  land  to  the  states  to  be  given  to  actual  settlers  at 
the  cost  only  of  surveying  it."     Globe,  1st  sess.  31st  Cong.,  845. 

»  Ibid.,  852-3. 

(293) 


32  BULLETIN  OF  THE   UNIVERSITY  OF  WISCONSIN. 

find  favor  with  the  rest  of  the  Senate,  it  did  not  now  endanger 
the  land  grant  bills.  The  only  other  point  brought  out  in  the 
discussion  was  the  objection  made  by  Bradbury,  of  Maine,  in  re- 
gard to  the  location  of  lands  at  a  distance  from  the  road  in  lieu 
of  those  already  sold  by  the  government.22  This  was  discussed 
at  some  length  and  an  amendment  restricting  the  grant  to  six 
miles  on  each  side  of  the  road  was  lost  15  to  23. 23  The  amend- 
ment offered  by  King  was  adopted  without  division24  and  the 
bill  went  over  to  the  next  day.25 

A  glance  at  the  map  will  show  that  the  bill  did  not  provide  for 
a  complete  line  from  Chicago  to  Mobile.  Between  Illinois  and 
Mississippi  lie  Kentucky  and  Tennessee,  states  without  public 
lands  and  therefore  not  included  in  the  bill.  When  the  Senate 
considered  the  bill  the  next  day,  Bell,  of  Tennessee,  called  atten- 
tion to  the  lack  of  a  connecting  link  in  the  system  and  offered  an 
amendment  which  provided  that  Kentucky  and  Tennessee  should 
be  given  a  part  of  the  lands  in  the  other  states  in  proportion  to 
the  length  of  line  in  the  various  states,  for  a  continuation  of  the 
Mobile  and  Ohio  railroad.26 

Nothing  illustrates  the  theory  of  the  land  grants  better  than 
the  reception  of  this  amendment.  King  asked  Bell  to  withdraw 
it  as  it  would  probably  defeat  the  whole  bill.  He  said  that  it  pro- 
ceeded on  a  different  principle,  as  the  road  in  Kentucky  and  Ten- 
nessee would  not  increase  the  value  of  any  public  lands.27  To 
this  objection  the  answer  was  made  by  Miller,  of  ISTew  Jersey, 
that  if  a  road  from  Chicago  to  Cairo  increased  the  value  of  lands 

22  "If  the  lands  have  been  sold,  then  the  selection  is  to  be  made  from  other  lands 
not  upon  the  road,  but  quite  remote  from  the  road,  and  so  remote  that  the  prin- 
ciple upon  which  the  bill  is  advocated  cannot  fairly  apply."     Ibid.,  847. 

83  Ibid.,  854. 

"Ibid.,  851. 

25  For  debate,  see  ibid.,  844-54. 

26 "So  to  amend  the  bill  that  a  proportion  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  lands  given 
to  the  state  of  Illinois  and  the  states  of  Alabama  and  Mississippi  be  secured  to 
the  states  of  Tennessee  and  Kentucky  respectively,  equal  to  the  proportion  of 
the  entire  line  of  the  railroad  proposed  to  be  constructed  from  the  southern 
terminus  of  the  Illinois  and  Michigan  canal  to  the  city  of  Mobile,  which  passes 
through  each  of  the  two  latter  states,  to  be  applied  by  them  to  the  construction 
of  the  sections  or  divisions  of  the  road  within  their  respective  jurisdiction." 
Ibid.,  868. 

27  Ibid. 

(291) 


SANBORN — RAILROAD  LAND  GRANTS.  33 

in  Illinois,  and  a  road  from  Mobile  to  the  boundary  of  Missis- 
sippi increased  the  value  of  lands  in  Alabama  and  Mississippi,  the 
complete  line  from  Mobile  to  Chicago  ought  to  still  further  in- 
crease the  lands  in  all  those  states.28  The  amendment  was,  how- 
ever, defeated  without  a  division.29  That  such  an  amendment 
would  only  continue  the  idea  of  the  original  bill,  even  on  the 
"land-owner"  theory  of  the  grant,  seems  clear.  But  the  consti- 
tutional basis  of  the  support  of  the  bill  was  not  strong  enough  to 
carry  such  an  extension  of  the  principle.  This  fact  illustrates  the 
essential  weakness  of  the  position  taken  by  those  favoring  the 
bill.  Forced  to  accept  a  strict  construction  of  the  Constitution, 
they  had  to  evolve  an  unnatural  argument  and  could  not  follow 
that  argument  to  its  logical  conclusion  but  were  constantly 
forced  into  inconsistencies. 

Dayton,  of  ISTew  Jersey,  attempted  to  bring  in  a  new  question 
by  an  amendment  providing  for  the  distribution  of  the  proceeds 
of  the  public  lands,  after  the  land  grant,  in  the  manner  provided 
by  the  Distribution  Bill  of  1S41.30  This  was  defeated  12  to  30. 
All  those  favoring  the  amendment  were  Whigs  while  only  five 
"Whigs  voted  against  it.31  The  votes  for  it  were  nearly  all  from 
the  East. 

Jefferson  Davis  expressed  the  sentiment  which  had  been  heard 
in  the  previous  debates  in  regard  to  the  indemnity  limits  by  offer- 
ing an  amendment  restricting  such  lands  to  within  fifteen  miles 
of  the  road.  He  considered  that  such  a  distance  was  the  limit 
of  the  road's  influence  as  this  was  as  far  as  a  loaded  team  could  go 
and  return  in  a  day.32  What  became  of  this  important  amend- 
ment is  not  clear.    Davis  said  that  he  would  not  press  it  and  the 

23  "Gentlemen  say  that  we  have  the  right  to  donate  to  the  state  of  Illinois  the 
public  lands  for  building  this  road  within  that  state,  but  the  moment  the  great 
public  highway  crosses  her  line  we  have  no  right  to  assist  in  the  completion 
of  this  work  !  In  other  words,  we,  holding  this  domain,  have  a  right  to  assist 
in  building  the  road  in  the  state  where  the  lands  lie.  but  the  moment  we  cross 
that  line  our  power  ceases.  This  is  a  partial  administration  of  the  public  prop- 
erty which  I  cannot  comprehend."     Ibid.,  8fi9. 

"Ibid.,   GOO. 

s0  Ibid.,  871,  873. 

"They  were  Smith  (Conn.),  Badger  and  Mangum  (N.  C),  Bell  (Tenn.),  and 
Morton  (Fla.).     Ibid.,  900. 

"  Ibid.,  902. 

(293) 


34  BULLETIN  OP  THE   UNIVERSITY  OF  WISCONSIN. 

bill  "was  reported  from  the  committee  of  the  whole  without  it.3S 
The  Journal  throws  no  light  upon  it,34  and  it  was  not  inserted 
in  the  House.  Yet  it  appears  in  the  bill  as  published  and  was  in- 
corporated in  the  subsequent  acts  on  the  subject.  The  effect  of 
this  change  was  considerable.  By  the  original  bill  the  company- 
could  replace  lands  previously  disposed  of  within  the  limits  of  the 
grants  by  the  nearest  public  lands,  and  could  go  to  the- 
boundaries  of  the  state,  if  necessary,  in  making  its  selections. 
But  under  the  amendment  the  lands  could  only  be  replaced  by 
vacant  lands  more  than  six  and  less  than  fifteen  miles  from  the 
road.  If  lands  could  not  be  secured  within  those  limits  the  com- 
pany had  to  do  without  them.  This  amendment,  apparently 
irregularly  passed,  affected  not  only  the  Illinois  Central  act  but 
all  others,  as  the  later  bills  were  drawn  up  on  the  model  of  the 
first  one.  If  the  amendment  slipped  in  by  a  clerical  error  it  was 
probably  the  most  far-reaching  mistake  of  that  nature  ever  made* 
by  Congress. 

The  bill  passed  the  Senate  26  to  14.  The  sectional  division 
was  very  similar  to  that  of  the  previous  Congress  except  that  the- 
vote  of  Ohio  was  divided  and  New  York  and  Pennsylvania  both 
favored  the  bill.35  Both  parties  supported  it,  the  Democrats  vot- 
ing 18  to  6  and  the  Whigs  8  to  7.36 

The  reading  of  the  Globe  gives  one  the  impression  that  much 
interest  was  taken  in  the  bill,  yet  it  is  scarcely  mentioned  in  the- 
newspapers  of  the  year.  This  was  the  time  of  the  Compromise  of 
1850  and  there  was  little  time  for  economic  discussions.  On- 
April  30th,  Pike  vTrote  to  the  New  York  Tribune  that  "the  de- 

M  "Mr.  Davis  :     Well,  if  no  one  else  objects,  I  shall  not  press  my  amendment. 

"There  being  no  further  propositions  to  amend,  the  bill  was  reported  back  to- 
the  Senate  ;  and  the  amendments  of  the  committee  concurred  in."     Ibid.,  904. 

84  Senate  Journal,  1st  sess.  31st  Cong.,  320-1. 

For.  Against. 

15  New  England   1  4 

Middle    2  4 

South    2  3 

Gulf    5  1 

West    (land)    13  1 

West    ( non-land )    3  1 

Globe,  1st  sess.  31st  Cong.,  904. 

80  There  was  one  free-soil  vote,  cast  by  Chase,  of  Ohio,  against  the  bill. 

(29C) 


SANBORN — RAILROAD  LAND  GRANTS.  35 

serted  seats  of  the  Senate  were  in  the  course  of  today  addressed 
by  Mr.  Benton,  who  made  some  brief  and  beautiful  remarks  in 
favor  of  the  bill  making  a  donation  of  alternate  sections  of  the 
public  lands  to  aid  road-making  in  Illinois."37 

The  bill  came  up  in  the  House  with  a  favorable  report  from 
the  committee  on  Public  Lands,  but  was  laid  aside  several  times. 
On  September  17  it  was  passed,  under  the  previous  question,  101 
to  75.  As  before,  it  was  opposed  by  the  South,  New  England 
was  almost  exactly  divided,  and  the  Middle  states  were  slightly 
in  favor  of  it33  There  were  52  Whig  votes  for  and  28  against 
the  bill.  Comparing  this  vote  with  that  of  the  previous  Con- 
gress we  rind  that  there  has  been  a  change  of  three  votes  in  the 
Middle  States,  one  in  the  South,  ten  in  the  Gulf  States,  and  five 
in  Tennessee  and  Kentucky. 

"What  caused  the  change  in  the  vote?  The  most  obvious  cause 
is  the  incorporation  of  the  Mobile  and  Ohio  road  in  the  bill  as 
there  was  a  gain  of  fifteen  votes  from  the  states  likely  to  be  bene- 
fited by  this  road.  If  Douglas  really  originated  this  idea  the  pass- 
age of  the  bill  may  be  said  to  have  been  due  to  him  alone.  An 
explanation  of  the  change  in  .some  of  the  eastern  votes  is  given 
by  John  Wentworth,  then  a  member  of  the  House  from  Illinois. 
He  states  that  there  had  been  opposition  to  land  grants  from  the 
old  states  on  account  of  fears  of  western  emigration  and  among 
the  Whigs  who  wished  a  distribution  of  the  proceeds  of  the 
land  sales.  Through  the  holders  of  the  old  canal  bonds,  mostly 
eastern  men  and  Whigs,  and  with  the  aid  of  Webster  and  Ash- 
mun  in  return  for  concessions  on  the  tariff,  the  passage  of  the 

"New  York  Weekly  Tribune,  May  11,  1850. 

For.   Against. 

M  New   England    10         11 

Middle    2S         22 

South    8         23 

Gulf    *f! 13  0 

WVst   (land)    34  12 

West  (non-land)    8  7 

House  Journal,  1st  sess.  3l3t  Cong.,  1490.  Walker,  of  Wisconsin,  stated  that 
the  Senators  and  Representatives  from  his  state  were  acting  under  a  memorial 
from  the  legislature  and  that  he  did  not  believe  that  any  of  them  were  in  favor 
of  land  grants.     Olobc,  1st  sess.  31st  Cong.,  1766. 


\ 


(297) 


36  BULLETIN  OP  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  WISCONSIN. 

bill  was  secured.39  There  was  certainly  an  increase  in  the  Whig 
vote  in  favor  of  this  bill  and  Breese  liints  at  some  such  bargain 
in  his  letter  to  Douglas  of  January  25,  1851. 40  There  also  ap- 
pears to  be  a  confirmation  of  this  in  the  action  three  days  later 
on  the  bill  granting  lands  for  a  railroad  in  Florida.  When  this 
bill  was  received  from  the  Senate  Cabell  said  that  it  had  been  his 
intention  to  move  the  immediate  passage  of  the  bill  but  as  his 
tariff  friends  were  in  such  a  bad  humor  at  the  defeat  of  their  bill 
that  morning  he  would  not  do  so.  He  said  that  he  did  not  think 
that  the  sins  of  the  Democratic  side  of  the  House  should  be  vis- 
ited upon  him.      (He  was  a  Whig.)41 

Another  element  which  probably  influenced  the  East  was  the 
branch  to  Chicago  which  connected  the  Mississippi  river  traffic 
with  the  trade  from  the  East  by  way  of  the  Great  Lakes  and  the 
railroads  which  were  just  being  constructed.  Douglas  attached 
great  importance  to  this  feature  of  the  bill.42  The  system  was  as 
comprehensive  a  one  as  could  well  be  devised,  connecting  as  it 
did  the  Xorthwest,  South,  and  East,  To  this  comprehensiveness 
must  be  attributed  in  great  part  the  success  of  the  measure.  Of 
minor  importance  was  the  political  astuteness  of  the  friends  of 
the  bill.  The  fate  of  the  other  land  grant  bills  was  such  as  to 
show  that  a  combination  of  exceptional  circumstances  was  neces- 
sary at  this  time  to  enable  such  a  bill  to  secure  the  approval  of  the 
House.43 

The  only  thing  of  importance  in  connection  with  the  other 
land  grant  bills  considered  at  this  session  was  an  amendment  of- 
fered by  King,  of  New  Jersey,  to  the  bill  making  a  grant  for  a 

88  Wentworth,  Congressional  Reminiscences,  Fergus  Hist.  Ser.,  No.  24,  pp. 
40-42. 

40 "It  was  the  votes  of  Massachusetts  and  New  York  that  passed  the  bill,  and 
you  and  I  know  how  they  were  obtained."  Springfield  Daily  Register,  Feb.  6, 
1851  ;  Fergus  Hist.  Ser.,  No.  23,  p.  S9. 

"Globe,  1st  sess.  31st  Cong.,  1953. 

42  "It  was  the  Chicago  branch  .  .  .  connecting  the  main  road  with  the 
various  lines  in  progress  of  construction,  from  Philadelphia,  New  York,  Boston, 
and  Portland,  as  well  as  the  great  chain  of  lakes  and  the  St.  Lawrence,  whicn 
secured  the  votes  we  obtained  from  Pennsylvania,  New  York  and  New  England." 
Douglas  to  Breese,  Feb.  22,  1851;  Fergus  Hist.  Ser.,  No.  23,  p.  96. 

43  Other  bills  were  acted  on  as  follows  :  Hannibal  and  St.  Joseph,  laid  on  the 
table,  91  to  81,  Globe,  1st  sess.  31st  Cong.,  1951 ;  Missouri  Pacific,  laid  on  the 
table,  102  to  65,  Ibid.,  1952  ;  others  not  considered. 

(298) 


SANBORN — RAILROAD  LAND  GRANTS.  37 

road  from  Hannibal  to  St.  Joseph.  This  provided  that  none  of 
the  lands  should  be  transferred  to  any  corporation,  company,  or 
individual,  but  should  be  used  by  the  state  directly,  the  profits  to 
be  applied  to  the  school  fund.44  This,  together  with  the  bill, 
was  laid  on  the  table.  Young,  of  Illinois,  submitted  a  similar 
amendment  to  another  bill  which  was  disposed  of  in  the  same 
manner.45 

By  this  time  the  arguments  for  and  against  land  grants  had 
been  well  defined.  They  were  to  develop  in  certain  directions, 
but  little  new  was  to  be  added  by  subsequent  discussions.  The 
chief  argument  for  the  land  grant  was  that  the  government  was 
a  great  landed  proprietor.  Subordinate  to  this  was  the  claim  by 
the  various  states  for  a  share  in  the  public  lands,  on  the  theory 
both  of  a  proportional  distribution  and  of  compensation  due  the 
new  states  on  account  of  the  exemption  of  the  lands  from  taxa- 
tion. Against  the  grants  were,  first,  the  constitutional  argument, 
that  they  were  only  internal  improvements  in  a  veiled  form,  and 
the  objection  from  the  standpoint  of  the  settler  that  the  desira- 
ble lands  were  raised  in  price.  From  the  idea  that  the  states 
were  entitled  to  a  share  in  the  public  lands,  came  the  plea  for  a 
general  grant  of  lands;  and  from  the  settlers'  argument  came  the 
agitation  for  the  homestead  law. 

44  Ibid.,  1951. 
"Ibid.,  1952. 


(299) 


38  BULLETIN  OF  THE  UNIVERSITY  OP  WISCONSIN. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE    EAST   AGAINST   THE   WEST  —  LAND   GRANTS   AND 

HOMESTEADS. 

The  effect  of  the  IHinois  Central  grant  on  legislation  was  not 
felt  at  once,  and  little  was  done  in  regard  to  the  matter  during 
the  second  session  of  the  thirty-first  Congress.  But  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  next  Congress,  bills  were  introduced  granting  lands 
to  railroads  in  nearly  all  of  the  states  which  had  public  lands. 
The  Commissioner  of  the  Land  Office  estimated  that  the  bills  in- 
troduced in  the  Senate  provided  for  3,090  miles  of  road,  and 
grants  amounting  to  13,901,657  acres.1  Other  estimates  were 
much  higher.  Not  only  were  many  more  bills  introduced ;  the 
interest  in  the  bills,  was  much  greater  than  at  the  previous  Con- 
gress. Pike  wrote  to  the  Tribune,  February  10,  1852,  "This 
question  of  grants  of  the  public  lands  is  engrossing,  and  is  likely 
to  engross  much  of  the  time  of  the  session.  It  is  in  fact  the 
great  leading  topic  of  interest."2 

It  is  not  worth  while  considering  these  bills  in  detail.  The  ar- 
gument for  land  grants  has  been  discussed  in  the  previous  chap- 
ter.   A  noteworthy  development  was,  however,  made  by  Charles 

Length  of  Grant, 

1     States.                                                                                         road,  miles.  acres. 

Michigan    534  341,760 

Wisconsin    156  599,040 

Iowa 434  3,104,417 

Missouri    232  890.8S0 

Arkansas    488  1,873,920 

Alabama   314  1,205,760 

Florida    932  3.S82.880 

Total    3,090         13,901,657 

Globe,  1st  sess.  32d  Cong.,  App.,  428. 

1  Semi-Weekly  Tribune,  February  24,  1852.  On  June  10,  Orr  claimed  in  the 
House  that  the  committee  on  public  lands  had  occupied  most  of  the  morning  hour 
for  the  previous  three  or  four  months.     Globe,  1st  sess.  32d  Cong.,  1551. 

(300) 


SANBORN — RAILROAD  LAND  GRANTS.  39 

Sumner  in  his  speech  on  the  Iowa  bill.  Attention  had  been 
called  before  to  the  fact  that  the  states  had  not  been  allowed  to 
tax  the  public  lands  within  their  limits  and  that  something  was 
due  the  states  on  this  account.  Sumner  worked  out  the  propo- 
sition mathematically,  claiming  that  the  grants  to  the  states 
would  no  more  than  compensate  for  the  money  which  might  have 
been  obtained  had  the  lands  been  subject  to  taxation.  He  at- 
tempted to  estimate*  the  amount  of  these  taxes  and  found  some 
$60,000,000  due  the  states  from  the  government.3  This  argu- 
ment was  answered  by  Hunter,  of  Virginia,  who  claimed  that  an 
estimate  of  a  tax  of  one  cent  an  acre  on  lands  which  could  not  be 
sold  for  $1.25  was  too  high.  He  also  claimed  that  the  exemption 
of  the  public  lands  from  taxation  had  been  compensated  for  by 
the  administration  of  the  territories  at  the  expense  of  the  general 
government,  by  the  sections  granted  for  the  use  of  schools,  the 
5  per  cent,  of  the  proceeds  of  the  lands,  and  by  the  lands  granted 
for  internal  improvements.4  Felch,  of  Michigan,  advanced  the 
same  argument  as  Sumner,  and  also  objected  to  the  government 
as  a  land  owner  in  the  states.  He  claimed  that  the  new  states  did 
not  have  the  powers  of  sovereignty  over  their  own  soil,  and  could 
not  exercise  the  right  of  eminent  domain  or  assess  government 
lands  for  benefits  due  to  state  action.5  In  the  House  an  opposi- 
tion to  corporations  developed  and  the  method  by  which  Illinois 
disposed  of  her  lands  was  criticised.6  An  attempt  was  made  to 
meet  this  objection  by  providing  that  the  lands  should  not  be 
transferred  to  a  corporation  but  should  be  sold  to  actual  settlers 
only,  the  profits  to  be  applied  to  the  support  of  schools.7  This 
amendment  was  not  adopted. 

At  this  session  of  Congress  fifteen  land  grant  bills  passed  the 
Senate  and  only  one  the  House*    On  only  one  of  the  Senate  bills 

3  Ibid.,  App.,  136-30.  The  exemptions  from  taxation  which  the  government  lands 
enjoyed  was  one  of  the  terms  on  which  the  new  states  had  been  admitted  to  the 
Union  and  existed  only  on  account  of  this  compact.  Withcrspoon  v.  Duncan,  4 
Wallace,  210. 

'  Globe,  1st  sess.  32d  Cong.,  App.,  203. 

•Ibid.,   App.,    149. 


0  Ibid.,   75-77. 
'  Ibid.,  545-46. 


(301) 


40  BULLETIN  OF  THE   UNIVERSITY  OP  WISCONSIN. 

was  a  vote  taken.  This  was  the  grant  to  Iowa  which,  passed  30  to 
10.8  In  the  House  the  bill  for  the  south-west  branch  of  the 
Pacific  passed  103  to  76  and  the  next  day  the  Iowa  bill  was  laid 
on  the  table  102  to  68.  There  were  twenty-six  persons  who 
voted  for  the  former  bill  and  against  the  latter,  the  change  being 
largely  for  the  New  England  and  Middle  States.  The  Missouri 
bill  received  the  support  of  these  states  and  the  West,  but  Massa- 
chusetts (8-0),  Pennsylvania  (14-6)  and  Maryland  (3-1)  were 
the  only  eastern  states  favoring  it.9  The  Iowa  bill  was  opposed  by 
those  three  states,  no  eastern  states  giving  a  majority  for  the 
measure.10  It  appears  that  Iowa  was  not  a  unit  in  favor  of  the 
bill,  as  some  of  the  river  towns  feared  that  the  railroads  would 
divert  trade  from  the  river  and  thus  injure  them.11  But  it  is  evi- 
dent that  an  explanation  must  be  sought  for  the  passage  of  the 
Missouri  bill,  as  that  was  the  exception  to  the  general  rule.  The 
Democrats  cast  49  votes  for  the  Missouri  and  36  for  the  Iowa  bill, 
with  62  votes  against  the  former  and  68  against  the  latter.  Of 
the  Whig  votes  51  were  for  the  Missouri  bill  and  31  for  the  Iowa 
bill,  with  14  against  the  former  and  33  against  the  latter. 

This  session  of  Congress  was  also  marked  by  an  effort  of  the 
eastern  states  to  secure  a  portion  of  the  public  lands  for  their  own 
use.    When  the  Iowa  land  grant  bill  first  came  up  in  the  Senate, 

8  The  votes  against  were  from  Maine  (2),  New  Hampshire,  Pennsylvania,  Dela- 
ware, Maryland,  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  and  Ohio  (2).  Senate  Journal,  1st 
sess.  32d  Cong.,  284. 

For.  Against. 

B  New  England  12  8 

Middle    36  23 

South    6  31 

Gulf    12  2 

West   (land)   40  1 

West   (non-land)    9  10 

House  Journal,  1st  sess.  32d  Cong.,  749. 

For.  Against. 

10New  England   2  16 

Middle    10  34 

South    6  29 

Gulf    10  2 

West  (laud)   29  14 

West  (non-land)    11  7 

Ibid.,  155. 

11  See  letter  of  Pike,  Semi-Weekly  Tribune,  March  9,  1852,  and  speech  of  Sena- 
tor Bradbury,  Jan.  17,  1S53,  Globe,  2d  sess.  32d  Cong.,  318. 

(302) 


SANBORN — RAILROAD  LAND  GRANTS.  41 

Underwood,  of  Kentucky,  proposed  an  amendment  granting  to 
the  states  which  had  no  public  lands  specified  amounts  of  the 
lands  in  the  other  states.  These  lands  were  to  be  used  for  educa- 
tion and  internal  improvements.12  Hunter  objected  to  this 
on  the  ground  that  the  holding  by  one  state  of  lands  in 
another  would  cause  trouble  between  the  states.13  Under- 
wood claimed  that  it  was  no  worse  for  a  state  so  to  hold 
lands  than  it  was  for  the  general  government.  He  cited 
the  settlement  of  the  boundary  dispute  between  Kentucky 
and  Tennessee  where  the  former  was  given  the  land  and 
the  latter  the  political  jurisdiction.14  The  amendment  was  de- 
feated 15  to  26.  Of  those  favoring  it  13  were  Whigs  while  21 
Democratic  votes  were  cast  against  it.15  In  the  House  a  similar 
attempt  was  made.  Bennett,  of  New  York,  moved  to  re-commit 
the  Hannibal  and  St.  Joseph  land  grant  bill,  with  instructions  to 
amend  so  as  to  secure  a  grant  to  the  various  states  in  proportion 
to  their  representation  in  Congress,  the  amount  granted  to  Illi- 
nois being  taken  as  a  unit.  The  land  states  were  to  have  double 
the  proportion  of  the  others.16  The  motion  was  lost  70  to  96. 17 
Bennett  then  reported  a  bill  from  the  committee  on  Public 
Lands,  making  specified  grants  to  the  land  states  for  railroads; 
to  the  non-land  states,  except  Texas,  150,000  acres  for  each  sen- 
ator and  representative,  for  the  support  of  schools;  and  to  the  ter- 
ritories and  the  District  of  Columbia  150,000  acres  each.18 
There  was  little  discussion  on  this  bill  and  it  was  ordered  read 
a  third  time  by  a  vote  of  95  to  92.    The  opposition  to  the  bill  was 

12  Globe,  1st  sess.  32d  Cong.,  390. 

13  "What  does  the  amendment  propose,  Mr.  President?  It  proposes  to  estab- 
lish the  old  states  as  landholders  in  the  bosoms  of  the  new  states — a  measure  that 
could  not  fail  to  sow  the  seeds  of  dissension  and  discord  between  the  several 
state  of  the  Confederacy.*'     Ibid.,  App.,  204. 

"  Ibid.,  App.,  222-26. 

15  Senate  Journal,  1st  sess.  32d  Cong.,  2S1. 

18  Globe,  1st  sess.  32d  Cong.,  632-3. 

17  Ibid.,  670. 

18 The  amounts  to  tho  land  states  were  as  follows  :  To  Missouri,  Iowa,  Arkansas, 
and  California,  3,000,000  each  ;  to  Alabama.  Michigan,  Wisconsin,  and  Louisiana, 
2,500.000  each  ;  to  Mississippi  and  Florida,  2.000.000  each  :  to  Illinois.  1,000,000  ; 
to  Indiana.  1.000,000,  and  all  unappropriated  public  lands  within  the  state;  to 
Ohio,  2,000,000,  and  all  unappropriated  public  lands  in  the  state.     Ibid.,  1536. 

(303) 


42  BULLETIN  OF  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  WISCONSIN. 

largely  from  the  South  and  West.19     On  party  lines  the  "Whigs 
voted  66  to  4  for  the  bill  while  the  Democrats  stood  26  to  87 

against  it. 

In  the  Senate  the  bill  was  reported  adversely  by  the  commit- 
tee on  Public  Lands  and  a  motion  to  take  it  up  was  lost,  22  to  23. 
New  England  was  quite  evenly  divided  on  the  bill,  otherwise  the 
sectional  division  was  much  the  same  as  in  the  House,20  as  was 
also  the  vote  by  parties,  the  Whigs  being  15  to  1  for  the  motion 
and  the  Democrats  20  to  6  against.  The  explanation  of  these 
votes  may  be  found  in  the  opposition  of  the  Democrats  to  any 
general  system  of  internal  improvements  and  to  the  old  plan  of 
the  Whigs  for  a  distribution  of  the  proceeds  of  the  land  sales.21 

Bennett's  plan  was  an  effort  to  settle  the  railroad  land  grant 
question,  and  indeed  many  features  of  the  general  land  policy, 
on  a  permanent  and  equitable  basis.  Whether  the  old  states 
were  entitled  to  share  in  the  public  lands  is  perhaps  outside  of  the 
present  discussion,  but  as  a  matter  of  fact  they  had  received  such 
a  share  from  the  beginning  in  the  money  which  came  into  the 
treasury  from  land  sales.  If  they  were  to  give  up  this  revenue 
on  account  of  grants  in  aid  of  enterprises  in  the  new  states 
they  could  with  plausibility  claim  some  share  in  the  lands  theni- 

For.     Against. 

"New  England  19  2 

Middle 35         13 

South    16         27 

Gulf    2         10 

West  (land)    15         30 

West  (non-land)    8  10 

Ibid.,  1603. 

For.     Against. 

50New  England   6  5 

Middle  5  1 

South   3  5 

Gulf 4  2 

West  (land)    3  7 

West  (non-land)    1  3 

Senate  Journal,  1st  sess.  32d  Cong.,  660. 

21  It  was  charged  that  the  Whigs  wished  a  speedy  disposition  of  the  public- 
lands,  so  that  an  Increase  in  the  tariff  would  be  necessary.  Globe,  1st  sess.  32d 
Cong.,  App.,  238.  A  railroad  convention,  held  at  St.  Louis,  November  15,  1852, 
protested  "against  giving  them  [the  public  lands]  away  to  any  one  class  of  the 
people  or  assigning  them  wholesale  to  the  old  states,  as  provided  for  by  the 
'Homestead'  and  'Bennett's'  land  bills."  Proceedings  of  Mississippi  Valley  Road 
Convention,  12. 

(301) 


SANBORN — RAILROAD    LAND    GRANTS. 


43 


selves.  True,  the  theory  of  the  railroad  grants  had  provided  for 
this  in  the  increase  in  the  price  of  the  reserved  lands,  but  as  we 
have  seen,  this  theory  was  more  or  less  of  a  make-shift.  In  Ben- 
nett's bill  the  broader  basis  of  making  a  general  grant  to  the 
states  was  adopted  without  complications  of  reserved  and  indem- 
nity lands.  How  this  would  have  worked  in  practice  we  cannot 
tell,  but  the  workings  of  the  other  system  were  not  such  as  to 
commend  it,  so  that  some  slight1  improvement  could  be  expected. 
Of  course,  even  if  the  plan  had  been  adopted  the  other  system 
of  specific  grants  might  have  continued,  but  this  was  not  likely. 
So  far  as  we  can  see,  Bennett's  plan  was  an  improvement  on  the 
other  in  that  it  was  general  and  permanent  and  aimed  to  put  an 
end  to  lobbying  in  behalf  of  special  bills;  and  in  that  it  made  gen- 
eral grants  to  the  states,  leaving  the  special  disposition  of  the 
lands  to  the  legislatures.  But  instead  of  accepting  this  solution 
of  the  question  the  special  legislation  was  continued  and  the  op- 
portunity was  lost  of  avoiding  many  of  the  evils  which  were  at- 
tendant on  that  legislation. 

The  sectional  divisions  noted  in  the  votes  on  the  different  bills 
were  brought  out  strongly  in  a  discussion  over  a  report  on  the 
Iowa  bill,  made  April  1,  1852,  by  Henn,  of  Iowa.  After  report- 
ins;  the  bill  from  the  committee  on  Public  Lands  he  said:  "I 
think  that  the  time  has  come  when  the  members  of  the  House 
from  the  West  should  stand  up  and  vote  with  each  other  upon  all 
these  propositions."  He  went  on  to  charge  the  eastern  members 
with  sectionalism  in  their  votes  on  measures  before  Congress. 
Venable,  of  North  Carolina,  claimed  that  there  had  been  no  dis- 
position on  the  part  of  eastern  members  unduly  to  favor  their 
own  schemes.22  The  next  day  Henn  elaborated  his  position, 
showing  opposition  on  the  part  of  the  East  to  the  Missouri  bill  on 
motion  to  refer  the  bill  to  the  Committee  of  the  "Whole.23  This 
same  bill,  however,  afterwards  passed  the  House. 


22  Olohe,  1st  sess.  32d  Cong.,  9.-.O. 
2S  Ibid.,  961-62. 


{005) 


44  BULLETIN  OF  THE   UNIVERSITY  OF  WISCONSIN. 

For  a  correct  understanding  of  railroad  land  grants  it  will  be 
necessary  to  trace  in  some  detail  the  history  of  another  feature 
of  our  public  land  system — the  homestead  law.  The  first,  al- 
though very  imperfect  expression  of  this  principle  was  found  in 
an  act  of  1842,  called  the  "Florida  Donation  Act."24  This 
granted  to  each  actual  settler  in  that  territory  a  quarter  section  of 
land  on  the  conditions  of  actual  settlement  and  the  cultivation  of 
a  portion  of  the  land.  At  that  time  the  new  territory  was  in 
terror  of  the  Indians,  and  it  was  felt  that  some  inducement  was 
needed  to  promote  settlement  there.  It  was  argued  that  this  do- 
nation would  in  fact  be  to  the  financial  profit  of  the  government 
by  making  settlement  safer  and  thus  causing  the  sale  of  other 
public  lands.25  Very  similar  acts  were  passed  in  1850  for  the 
territory  of  Oregon,  in  1853  for  Washington  and  in  1854  for 
New  Mexico.26 

The  high-water  mark  in  the  sales  of  the  public  lands  was 
reached  in  1836.  The  fact  that  the  government  possessed  many 
acres  of  land  which  it  could  not  dispose  of  led  to  attempts  to  re- 
duce and  graduate  the  price  of  the  lands.  At  first  such  attempts 
were  favored  on  the  ground  of  the  advantage  which  they  would 
bring  to  the  government,  simply  as  a  business  proposition.  But 
in  1846  the  idea  that  such  a  reduction  in  price  should  be  made  on 
account  of  the  settler  was  advanced.27  Darragh,  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, introduced  in  the  House  an  amendment  to  a  graduation 
bill,  providing  that  lands  which  had  been  subject  to  entry  for  ten 
years  should  be  given  to  actual  settlers  after  three  years'  occupa- 
tion. This  was  an  approach  toward  the  later  homestead  law,  but 
the  House  was  not  ready  for  such  a  step,  and  the  amendment 
was  rejected,28  as  was  one  offered  by  Andrew  Johnson  granting 
a  quarter  section  to  destitute  heads  of  families  after  four  years' 
occupation.29     The   claim   which   Johnson   later   made   to   the 

"Statutes  at  Large,  V,  502. 

25  Globe,  2d  sess.  27th  Cong.,  C23-24,  764-66. 

20  See  Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  295-7. 

27  Globe,  1st  sess.  29th  Cong.,  1058-63. 

2SIbtfi.,  1077. 

29  Ibid. 

(300) 


SANBORN— RAILROAD    LAND   GRANTS.  45 

fatherhood  of  the  homestead  law  seems  to  be  justified  by  the 
action  which  he  took  at  this  time. 

We  hear  little  of  homesteads  or  graduation  bills  during  the 
next  Congress,  but  in  the  thirty-first  Congress  two  distinct  prop- 
ositions were  brought  forward  looking  toward  the  donation  of 
the  public  lands  to  actual  settlers.  Douglas  proposed  to  grant 
160  acres  of  land  to  actual  settlers  who  should  take  up  a  resi- 
dence upon  and  cultivate  the  land  for  a  period  of  four  years.30 
Walker,  of  Wisconsin,  wished  to  cede  to  the  new  states  the  public 
lands  on  condition  that  they  be  granted  to  actual  settlers,  in  lim- 
ited quantities,  for  the  cost  of  administration.31 

To  both  of  these  propositions  the  committee  on  Public  Lands 
made  the  same  general  objections.  The  point  of  view  taken 
was  that  the  public  lands  were  to  be  administered  for  the  bene- 
fit of  the  treasury  as  they  were  pledged  to  the  payment  of  the 
public  debt.  It  was  also  argued  that  the  large  quantity  of  free 
lands  suddenly  placed  upon  the  market  would  reduce  farm 
values  in  the  new  states  and  also  the  value  of  the  grants  made  in 
favor  of  internal  improvements.32  In  this  last  objection  may  be 
found  one  of  the  sources  of  the  conflict  which  was  to  arise  later 
between  land  grants  and  homesteads.  The  chief  discussion  over 
the  report  was  during  the  second  session  of  this  Congress. 

Two  resolutions  were  introduced  at  this  time;  one  by  Webster 
declaring  the  right  of  each  male  citizen  to  a  homestead  of  160 
acres  after  three  years'  cultivation,33  and  the  other  by  Houston, 
of  Texas,  declaring  that  each  family  not  worth  $1,500  was  en- 
titled to  160  acres  of  land  after  three  years'  cultivation.34  The 
discussion  over  these  resolutions  developed  the  connection  be- 
tween the  revenues  from  the  public  lands  and  the  tariff,  and 
was  mixed  up  with  the  discussion  of  Seward's  resolution  for 
grants  to  Hungarian  exiles.35     In  the  House  Andrew  Johnson 


•°  Senate  Journal,  1st  6ess.  31st  Cong.,  36. 

81  Ibid.,  116. 

12  Senate  Reports,  1st  sess.  31st  Cong.,  No.  167. 

88  Glouc,  1st  sess.  31st  Cong.,  210. 

"  Ibid.,  2T52. 

85  Ibid.,  264-66. 

(307) 


46  BULLETIN  OP  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  WISCONSIN. 

introduced  two  homestead  bills,  which  were  not  discussed  at 
any  length. 

With  this  agitation  in  favor  of  homesteads  we  may  connect  the 
objections  made  to  the  increase  in  the  price  of  the  lands  reserved 
to  the  government  in  the  grants  to  railroads.36  That  the  home- 
stead doctrine  was  opposed  to  the  land  grant  system  was  evident 
from  the  report  of  the  public  lands  committee.  The  antagonism 
of  the  two  systems  will  be  observed  during  the  later  history  of 
the  homestead  law. 

Outside  of  Congress  the  feeling  in  favor  of  grants  to  actual 
settlers  was  becoming  manifest.  The  Buffalo  convention  of 
1848  had  declared  for  "free  soil"  in  an  economic  as  well  as  a 
political  sense,37  and  the  Free-soil  convention  of  1S52  reaffirmed 
this  in  stronger  terms.3S  During  1850  and  1851  there  were 
resolutions  transmitted  to  Congress  from  the  legislatures  of  New 
York,39  Missouri,40  Illinois,41  and  Indiana,42  favoring  grants 
of  land  to  actual  settlers.  Probably  the  strongest  expression  of 
the  anti-land  grant  sentiment  from  the  settler's  point  of  view 
came  from  Wisconsin.  In  his  message  to  the  legislature  of  that 
state  in  1852,  Governor  Farwell  objected  to  grants  as  restrain- 
ing the  development  of  the  state  by  removing  valuable  portions 
of  the  public  lands  from  settlement.43     Eastman,  one  of  Wis- 

36  Supra,   p.   31. 

ST  "Resolved,  That  the  free  grant  to  actual  settlers,  in  consideration  of  the 
expenses  they  incur  in  making  settlements  in  the  wilderness,  which  are  usually 
fully  equal  to  their  actual  cost,  and  of  the  public  benefits  arising  therefrom,  of 
reasonable  portions  of  the  public  lands,  under  suitable  limitations,  is  a  wise  and 
ju3t  measure  of  public  policy  which  will  promote,  in  various  ways,  the  interests 
of  all  the  states  of  this  Union."     Stanwood,  History  of  Presidential  Elections,  175. 

3S  "The  public  lands  of  the  United  States  belong  to  the  people,  and  should  not 
be  sold  to  individuals  nor  granted  to  corporations,  but  should  be  held  as  a 
sacred  trust  for  the  benefit  of  the  people,  and  should  be  granted  in  limited 
quantities,  free  of  cost,  to  landless  settlers."     Ibid.,  18S. 

39  House  Misc.  Docs.,  1st  sess.  31st  Cong.,  No.  23. 

<°Ibid.,  No.  29. 

»  Ibid.,  2d  sess.   31st  Cong.,  No.   6. 

42  Senate  Misc.  Docs.,  1st  sess.  31st  Cong.,  No.  86. 

43  "These  large  grants  of  the  public  lands  to  the  states,  in  trust  for  the  bene- 
fit of  specific  works  of  internal  improvement  under  the  supervision  of  private 
Incorporated  companies,  will  retard  the  settlement  of  the  state,  by  engrossing  tne 
most  valuable  portions  of  the  public  lands,  and,  in  every  instance,  will  probably 
have  the  effect  to  keep  them  out  of  Immediate  market,  as  well  as  to  increase  the 
cost  to  the  settler  when  offered  for  sale."     Assembly  Journal,  5th  sess.,  30-31. 

(308) 


SANBORN — RAILROAD  LAND  GRANTS.  47 

consin's  representatives,  said  that  this  message  did  not  represent 
the  sentimont  of  the  state  ;44  certainly  the  governor  was  not  sup- 
ported by  the  legislature  in  this  position.45  The  more  advanced 
ground  which  Wisconsin  took  in  this  matter  may  be  due  to 
the  large  increase  in  its  population  between  1840  and  1850. 
During  these  ten  years  there  was  an  increase  from  30,945  to 
305,391,  or  886  per  cent.  During  the  same  time  Illinois  grew 
from  470,183  to  851,470  or  79  per  cent.,  Michigan  from  212,- 
267  to  397,654  or  87  per  cent.,  and  Iowa  from  43,112  to  129,214 
or  199  per  cent. 

During  the  thirty-second  Congress  the  two  ideas  regarding  the 
•disposal  of  the  public  lands  came  into  conflict  more  strongly 
than  at  any  other  time.  On  March  17,  Pike  wrote  to  the  Trib- 
une that  the  House  would  stop  the  land  grant  bills,  but  that  com- 
promises might  be  formed  with  those  who  were  opposed  to  the 
system,  but  who  were  more  opposed  to  grants  to  settlers.46  It 
was  stated  in  the  House  that  the  only  formidable  opposition  to 
the  homestead  bill  came  from  those  who  favored  land  grants;47 

* 

and  the  opposition  to  the  land  grants  by  the  advocates  of  the 
homestead  bill  was  said  to  bo  caused  by  the  fear  that  the  grants 
would  take  up  large  tracts  of  land.48  Thomas  A.  Hendricks 
admitted  the  opposition,  but  considered  it  ill-founded  as  the  two 
measures  were  necessary  to  the  development  of  a  new  country.49 
The  homestead  bill,  in  the  form  it  was  introduced  and  passed 
the  House,  provided  that  any  vacant  public  lands  could  be  en- 
tered under  its  provisions.  This  would  of  course  include  the  re- 
served lands  of  the  railroad  grants  and  thus  the  effect  on  the 
value  of  the  lands  granted  to  railroads  and  the  theory  on  which 
those  grants  were  made  was  much  greater  than  it  would  have 
been  if  such  lands  were  reserved  from  the  action  of  the  law. 

44  Globe.  1st.  sesa.  32d  Cong..  App.,  431. 

*'-  .See  Madison  correspondence  in  the  Milwaukee  Sentint  I,  January  20,  1S52. 

48  Semi-Weekly  Tribune,  March  19,  1852. 
47  Globe,  1st  sess.  32d  Cong.,  App.,  574. 
43  Ibid.,  App.,  737. 

49  Ibid.,  App.,  482. 

(309) 


48  BULLETIN  OP  THE   UNIVERSITY  OF  WISCONSIN. 

The  house  passed  the  homestead  bill  at  this  session  107  to 
56,50  while  the  Senate  twice  refused  to  take  it  up  for  discussion, 
first  by  a  vote  of  14  to  31,51  and  then  by  a  vote  of  16  to  38.52 
In  the  House  the  only  section  to  oppose  the  bill  was  the  South, 
the  free  states  voting  for  the  bill  73  to  23  and  the  slave  states 
for  it  34  to  33.53 

In  the  Senate  all  sections  of  the  country  except  the  West  were 
opposed  to  the  bill.  On  the  first  vote  Arkansas  was  the  only 
slave  state  to  vote  for  the  bill  while  on  the  second  vote  Louisi- 
ana was  alone  in  her  support.  On  the  other  hand  the  free  states 
cast  15  votes  on  the  first  motion  and  14  on  the  second  against 
the  bill.54 

.  A  comparison  with  those  representatives  who  voted  on  both  the 
homestead  act  and  the  bill  granting  lands  to  Iowa,55  shows  131 
voting  on  both  bills.  Of  these  two  favored  the  land  grant  and 
opposed  the  homestead  bill,  51  favored  both  bills,  35  were  for 
homesteads  and  against  land  grants  and  43  against  both  systems. 
In  the  Senate  a  similar  comparison  shows  17  for  the  Iowa  bill56 
and  against  the  homestead  bill,  9  for  both  measures,  2  against 
land  grants  and  favoring  homesteads  and  7  against  both  bills. 


60  House  Journal,  1st  sess.  32d  Cong.,  705. 

61  Senate  Journal,  1st  sess.  32d  Cong.,  586. 

02  Ibid.,  618. 

For. 

M  New  England   12 

Middle 27 

South 4 

Gulf    10 

West   (land) 39 

West   (non-land)    13 

House  Journal,  1st  sess.  32d  Cong.,  705. 

For. 

I.  II. 

"New  England 2  4 

Middle    2  2 

South    0  0 

Gulf    0  1 

West    (land)    10  9 

West    (non-land)    0  0 

Senate  Journal,  1st  sess.  32d  Cong.,  586,  618. 

65  House  Journal,  1st  sess.  32d  Cong.,  755. 

60  Senate  Journal,  1st  sess.  32d  Cong.,  284. 

(310) 


Against. 

8 

9 

28 

1 

6 

4 

Against. 

I. 

II. 

8 

r 

4 

4 

8 

10 

5 

6 

4 

6 

4 

& 

SANBORN — RAILROAD  LAND  GRANTS.  49 

Combining  both  sets  of  figures  we  find  that  of  166  senators  and 
representatives  56  were  in  favor  of  one  and  opposed  the  other 
measure,  60  were  in  favor  of  both  plans  and  50  were  opposed  to 
both.  The  division  between  the  three  opinions  is  thus  almost 
equal. 


(311) 


50  BULLETIN  OF  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  WISCONSIN. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

LATER   GRANTS   TO   STATES. 

After  1853  there  was  a  lull  in  land  grant  legislation.  By  the 
close  of  that  year  grants  had  been  made  to  Illinois,  Mississippi, 
Alabama,  Missouri,  and  Arkansas  to  an  amount  estimated  at 
about  8,000  acres.1  If  there  was  any  sectionalism  in  the  dis- 
tribution of  the  grants,  the  South  had  received  more  than  her 
share.  iSTot  until  1856  do  land  grants  again  become  prominent 
in  Congress,  but  during  this  time  the  homestead  movement  is 
fast  gaining  ground.  On  account  of  this  neglect  of  land  grants 
little  light  is  thrown  on  the  conflict  between  the  two  systems. 

In  the  House  a  homestead  bill  was  passed  in  1854,  by  a  vote 
of  107  to  72.  The  sectional  groupings  were  not  materially  dif- 
ferent from  the  vote  at  the  previous  session.  The  conflict  with 
the  slavery  question  had  not  yet  developed  and  from  the  slave 
states  24  votes  were  cast  for  the  bill,  while  34  members  from  the 
free  states  voted  against  it.  Both  political  parties  favored  the 
bill.2 

In  the  Senate  the  bill  was  amended  by  a  substitute  which  pro- 
vided for  a  graduation  in  the  price  of  the  public  lands;  a  gen- 
eral grant  to  the  states  for  railroads,  and  the  right  of  a  head  of  a 
family  to  receive  160  acres  of  land  at  25  cents  an  acre  after  five 
years'  occupation.3  The  substitute  was  adopted  34  to  13,  being 
favored  by  both  the  friends  and  enemies  of  the  homestead  act. 

When  the  bill  had  been  introduced  in  the  House  it  had  pro- 
vided for  the  entry  of  any  vacant  public  lands.  An  amendment 
was  introduced  limiting  the  lands  to  which  the  law  was  applica- 

1  Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  273. 
1  Globe,  1st  sess.  33d  Cong.,  549. 
3  Ibid.,  App.,  1122. 

(312) 


SANBORN — RAILROAD    LAND    GRANTS.  51 

ble  to  those  held  at  $1.25  an  acre.  Cobb,  who  moved  the  amend- 
ment, said  he  did  so  because  to  open  up  the  reserved  lands  in  the 
railroad  grants  who  would  have  been  to  lose  to  the  govern- 
ment the  compensation  for  those  grants.4  Bissell,  of  Illinois, 
said  that  he  did  not  believe  that  it  was  the  intention  of  any 
member  of  the  House  to  apply  the  homestead  law  to  the  rail- 
road lands,5  and  an  amendment  similar  in  effect  to  Cobb's  was 
adopted.0     This  point  was  not  discussed  in  the  Senate. 

The  amendment  to  the  homestead  bill  which  was  adopted  in 
the  Senate  had  provided  that  if  a  state  should  charter  a  railroad 
which  ran  through  the  public  lands  of  the  United  States  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Interior  should  set  apart  7,680  acres  a  mile,  within 
twelve  miles  of  the  road,  these  lands  to  be  subject  to  pre-emption 
by  the  state  at  prices  varying  with  the  length  of  time  the  lands 
had  been  in  the  market,  with  a  maximum  of  one  dollar  an  acre.7 
This  part  of  the  amendment  was  not  discussed  in  the  Senate  nor 
was  it  brought  up  in  the  House. 

The  only  land  grant  bill  passed  at  this  session  of  Congress 
was  one  to  the  territory  of  Minnesota.  Some  doubts  were  ex- 
pressed as  to  the  power  of  a  territory  to  dispose  of  the  grant  and 
charter  a  company  but  the  bill  passed  the  House  99  to  71,8  the 
Senate  without  a  division,9  and  became  a  law  June  29,  1854.10 
About  a  month  after  the  passage  of  the  bill,  Washburn,  of  Illi- 
nois, stated  in  the  House  that  the  bill  ui  passed  differed  from  the 
engrossed  bill  in  an  important  particular.  In  a  sentence  which 
read  "nor  shall  they  [the  lands]  enure  to  the  benefit  of  any  com- 
pany heretofore  constituted  or  organized,"  the  word  or  had 
been  changed  to  and.  It  seems  that  there  existed  a  company  in 
Minnesota  which  by  its  charter  was  to  receive  any  lands  which 
Congress  might  grant  in  aid  of  a  railroad  along  that  route.     It 

*  Ibid.,  500-501. 
°Ibid.,  522. 

6  Ibid.,  526. 

7  Ibid.,  App.,  1122. 

8  Ibid.,  1452. 
8  Ibid.,  1552. 

10  Statutes  at  Large,  X,  302. 

(313) 


52  BULLETIN  OF  THE   UNIVERSITY  OV  WISCONSIN. 

was  felt  that  to  pass  a  bill  granting  lands  to  Minnesota  when  it 
was  known  that  a  certain  company  would  receive  them  would 
be  making  the  grant  to  a  corporation  and  not  to  the  state.  This 
was  contrary  to  the  theory  of  the  grants  which  implied  perfect 
freedom  to  the  state  in  the  exercise  of  its  sovereignty  over  the 
lands  granted  to  it.  The  provision  quoted  above  had  therefore 
been  inserted  to  prevent  the  old  company  from  receiving  the 
lands.  By  the  change  noted,  however,  the  company,  which  had 
not  been  fully  organized  until  after  the  passage  of  the  law,  al- 
though chartered  before,  had  set  up  a  claim  to  the  lands.  On 
Washburn's  motion  a  committee  was  appointed  to  investigate 
the  matter.11 

Later  in  the  day  H.  L.  Stevens,  from  the  committee  on  Pub- 
lic Lands,  stated  that  he  had  intended  to  make  the  change  be- 
fore the  bill  was  reported  from  the  committee,  but  failing  to  do 
so  and  regarding  it  as  merely  verbal  he  had  requested  the  clerk 
of  the  House  to  do  so.12 

The  reports  of  the  investigating  committee  agreed  with 
Stevens'  statement  of  the  case  and  exonerated  him  of  any  wrong 
intention  in  his  action.  Bills  were  also  introduced  amending  the 
act  so  that  it  would  read  as  when  originally  reported  from  the 
committee.13  But  instead  of  so  amending  the  law  the  House 
passed  a  bill  repealing  the  entire  grant.14  This  bill  reached  the 
Senate  August  3.  It  was  so  late  in  the  session  that  an  immediate 
consideration  was  necessary.'  Objection  being  made  to  a  second 
reading  of  the  bill  it  appeared  as  if  the  grant  might  be  saved  to 
the  territory.  The  objection  was,  however,  overcome  by  offer- 
ing the  repeal  of  the  law  as  an  additional  section  to  a  private  bill 
then  under  consideration.15  An  effort  was  made  by  Douglas  to 
amend  the  amendment  so  that  the  act  would  be  restored  to  the 
form  which  the  House  had  originally  intended  but  this  was  lost 

11  Globe,  1st  sess.  33d  Cong.,  1888-89. 

12  Ibid.,  1S91. 

13  Ibid.,  2094. 
"  Ibid.,  2100. 
15  Ibid.,  2172. 

(334) 


SANBORN- — RAILROAD    LAND    GRANTS.  53 

15  to  28.  The  amendment  was  then  agreed  to  36  to  10  and  the 
bill  passed.10  The  bill  was  then  sent  to  the  House  which  passed 
it  as  amended,17  so  that  the  grant  was  entirely  repealed.  The 
question  of  the  validity  of  the  repeal  came  before  the  Supreme 
Court,  where  its  constitutionality  was  upheld  on  the  ground  that 
the  territory  could  acquire  no  vested  interests  in  the  lands  until 
the  first  twenty  miles  of  the  road  had  been  constructed.18 

The  next  Congress  was  the  banner  one  for  land  grants.  Flor- 
ida, Alabama,  Louisiana,  Mississippi,  Michigan,  Wisconsin,  Min- 
nesota, and  Iowa  received  lands  estimated  at  over  10,000,000 
acres.19  There  was  little  discussion  of  constitutional  questions 
in  connection  with  these  bills.  The  Iowa  bill  received  the  most 
attention  and  illustrates  well  the  ideas  of  the  time  on  the  sub- 
ject of  land  grants.  It  had  been  received  from  the  House  and  the 
question  was  on  its  reference  to  the  committee  on  Public  Lands. 
Jones,  of  Iowa,  opposed  this  and  asked  for  immediate  considera- 
tion, because  if  the  bill  were  delayed  the  land  along  the  proposed 
lines  would  be  taken  up  on  bounty  warrants.  Yulee,  of  Florida, 
considered  that  when  the  senators  and  representatives  from  a 
state  were  agreed  on  a  land  grant  bill  it  was  the  duty  of  Con- 
gress to  pass  that  bill  without  further  question.20 

Foot,  of  Vermont,  urged  the  reference  to  the  committee  in 
order  that  the  parties  interested  might  be  heard,  while  Adams, 
of  Mississippi,  claimed  that  the  only  parties  interested  were  the 
United  States  and  Iowa.  Crittenden,  of  Kentucky,  thought 
that  the  committee  should  be  given  a  chance  to  determine 
whether  or  not  the  roads  were  of  national  importance.21  Ref- 
erence was  finally  refused  and  the  bill  read  a  third  time  and 
passed.22  A  few  days  later  Crittenden  moved  a  reconsideration 
of  the  bill.     He  said  that  there  was  another  road  already  begun 

18  Ibid.,  2178. 

17  Ibid.,  2118. 

18  Rice  v.  Minn,  d  V.  W.  R.  Co.,  1  Black,  358. 
10  Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  269-70. 

20  Globe,  1st  sess.  34th  Cong.,  1168. 
51  Ibid.,  1168-69. 
"31  to  9,  Ibid.,  1173. 


(315 


54  BULLETIN  OP  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  WISCONSIN. 

in  Iowa  on  which  some  hundreds  of  thousands  of  dollars  had 
been  expended.  He  wished  the  bill  referred  to  a  committee  so 
that  the  rights  of  this  road  could  be  considered.23  There  were 
already  four  roads  provided  for  by  the  bill,  but  there  was  a  long 
discussion,  covering  thirteen  pages  of  the  Globe,  as  to  the  right 
of  this  other  road  to  a  grant.24  Reconsideration  was  refused, 
however,  by  a  vote  of  15  to  19. 

There  was  little  discussion  over  bills  in  the  House  as  they 
usually  went  through  under  the  previous  question.  Jones,  of 
Tennessee,  (Sailed  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  original  theory 
of  the  grants  had  been  abandoned  as  they  were  being  made  to 
roads  then  under  process  of  construction  and  which  did  not  need 
the  aid.25  Letcher,  of  Virginia,  expressed  the  feelings  of  some 
on  the  subject  wjien  he  moved  to  amend  the  title  of  the  Missis- 
sippi bill  so  as  to  read:  "A  bill  for  constructing  works  of  inter- 
nal improvements  by  means  of  the  Federal  Government  of  the 
United  States."26  At  this  time  the  only  section  which  opposed 
the  bills  was  the  South,  although  Ohio  was  inclined  to  vote 
against  them.27 

It  was  evident  that  a  great  change  in  regard  to  land  grants 
had  occurred  in  six  years.  The  passage  of  the  Illinois  Central 
bill  in  1850  was  exceptional  and  only  secured  by  a  most  fortu- 
nate combination  of  circumstances.  But  in  1856  the  doctrine 
could  be  advanced  that  where  a  railroad  was  to  be  built  through 
the  public  lands  it  was  a  matter  of  course  entitled  to  an  ex- 
tensive portion  of  those  lands  to  aid  in  its  construction.     The 

23  Ibid.,  1187. 

24  Ibid.,  1207-20. 

25  Ibid.,  132S-29. 

26  Ibid.,  1945. 

27  The  vote  on  the  Mississippi  bill  shows  the  sectional  division  : 

■ House. .       Senate » 

For.     Against.  For.     Against. 

New  England   13                7  5                1 

Middle    30              15  1                3 

South   7              13  2                5 

Gulf    13                1  5                0 

West   (land)    24              14  6                2 

West    (non-land)    5                9  3                0 

House  Journal,  1st  sess.  34th  Cong.,  1379  ;  Senate  Journal,  1st  sess.  34th  Cong., 
545. 

(310) 


SANBORN — RAILROAD    LAND    GRANTS.  55 

Senate  seems  almost  to  have  accepted  this  idea,  although  the 
House  was  much  more  conservative.  But  it  can  be  said  that 
Congress  was  approaching  the  point  where  nearly  every  appli- 
cant had  a  good  chance  of  receiving  a  grant  of  the  public  lands. 
The  causes  which  brought  about  this  change  are  not  entirely  clear. 
The  fact  that  some  states  had  received  grants  enabled  the  others 
to  set  up  a  claim  to  the  same  favor,  while  the  passage  of  each 
bill  made  easier  the  succeeding  ones  by  the  mere  force  of  ex- 
ample. Moreover,  it  had  been  found  useless  to  expect  that  the 
public  lands  would  continue  to  be  any  considerable  source  of  rev- 
enue, so  that  the  financial  value  of  the  grants  to  the  government 
was  becoming  less.  Another  possible  cause  was  the  growth  of 
the  union  between  the  East  and  West,  due  to  the  economic  de- 
velopment of  those  sections  at  the  expense  of  the  South.  This 
is  illustrated  in  the  votes  on  the  land  bills. 

One  reason  for  the  increase  in  land  grants  whose  extent  it  is 
impossible  to  determine,  is  political  corruption.  The  character 
of  the  congressmen  who  supported  the  earlier  bills  indicates 
that  at  that  time  no  such  charge  could  be  brought  against  the 
chief  friends  of  those  measures,  commanding  as  they  did  the  sup- 
port of  Douglas,  Cass,  Sumner,  Davis,  Calhoun,  and  other  lead- 
ing senators.  But  in  the  period  just  before  the  war  the  political 
standards  were  much  lower  than  in  1850.  General  legislative 
corruption  was  freely  charged,28  and  it  is  very  probable  that 
land  grant  bills,  involving  as  they  did  great  corporate  interests, 
were  helped  along  by  improper  methods.  An  important  charge 
to  this  effect  was  made  by  the  correspondent  of  the  New  York 
Tribune,  in  1854,  in  which  he  alleges  great  bargaining  in  connec- 
tion with  the  land  grant  bills.  R.  J.  "Walker  is  mentioned  as 
mixed  up  in  one  of  the  largest  of  the  schemes.29  The  interest 
in  land  grants  taken  by  congressmen  from  New  England  and  the 
Middle  States  was  also  doubtless  not  uninfluenced  by  capitalists 
■of  those  sections  interested  in  the  railroads  of  the  interior. 

The  thirty-fifth    Congress    practically    ended    railroad    land 

28 Rhodes,   History  of  United  States,   III,   60. 
2'JV.  Y.  Daily  Tribune,  March  11,  1854. 

5  (317) 


56  BULLETIN  OF  THE   UNIVERSITY  OF  WISCONSIN. 

grants  for  some  time.  The  crisis  of  1857  stopped  the  construc- 
tion of  roads  already  begun  or  projected  and  prevented  the  for- 
mation of  plans  for  building  new  ones.  In  1858  a  number  of 
bills  granting  lands  for  railroads  were  introduced  in  the  Senate 
but  were  laid  on  the  table  on  the  recommendation  of  the  commit- 
tee on  Public  Lands,  it  being  considered  inexpedient  to  act 
upon  them  at  that  time.30 

Without  going  into  a  discussion  of  the  crisis  of  1857,  it  may 
be  stated  that  the  great  amount  of  railroad  building  of  the  pre- 
vious years  was  one  of  its  prominent  causes.  Wirth  so  considers 
it,  and  comments  on  the  large  increase  in  railroad  building  at 
this  time.31  The  same  view  is  taken  by  both  von  Hoist  32  and 
Rhodes.33  Up  to  1857  about  5,000  miles  of  projected  road  had 
been  aided  by  grants  of  government  lands.34  The  entire  railroad 
construction  during  the  same  period  was  15,175  miles.  The  ef- 
fect of  the  grants  on  the  other  roads  was  of  course  considerable, 
as  many  were  begun  in  the  hope  of  receivng  land  grants.  Also 
the  land  grants  stimulated  railroad  building  in  the  very  portion 
of  the  country  least  ready  for  it. 

The  crisis  did  not,  however,  prevent  a  vigorous  debate  over 
the  homestead  bill  during  the  session  of  1858-59.  In  the  first 
session  of  the  thirty-fifth  Congress  the  bill  was  discussed  at  some 
length  in  the  Senate,  but  little  was  brought  out  concerning  its' 
relation  to  land  grants.  The  bill  was  finally  postponed  to  the 
next  session.35  Before  it  came  up  again  in  the  Senate,  the  House 
had  passed  a  homestead  bill  by  a  vote  of  120  to  76.  The  division 
of  the  vote  was  on  the  line  between  the  free  and  slave  states, 
rather  than  by  the  old  sectional  divisions.  The  only  votes  from 
the  free  states  against  the  bill  were  from  Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  In- 

80  Globe,  1st  sess.  35th  Cong.,  2451. 

31  Wirth,  Geschichte  der  Handclskrisen,  Frankfurt  am  Main,   1890,  335. 

32  Von  Hoist,  Constitutional  History  of  the  United  States,  VI,  104-10. 

35  "The  most  prominent  element  in  bringing  on  the  panic  of  1857  was  the  ex- 
pansion of  credit,  induced  by  the  rapid  building  of  new  railroads  and  by  the  new 
supply  of  gold  from  California,"  Rhodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  III,  52. 

34  This  is  only  an  estimate  of  the  number  of  miles  of  road  provided  for  in 
the  various  land-grant  bills.  Not  all  of  the  roads  so  provided  for  were  con- 
structed. 

85  Globe,  1st  sess.  35th  Cong.,  2426. 

(318) 


SANBORN — RAILROAD  LAND  GRANTS.  57 

diana,  and  Illinois.  On  the  other  hand  the  only  votes  for  the  bill 
in  the  slave  states  came  from  Maryland,  Tennessee,  Kentucky, 
and  Arkansas.30  On  party  lines  the  division  was  also  significant. 
The  Democrats  (I  use  the  classification  of  the  Tribune  Almanac) 
stood  38  for  and  60  against  the  bill,  the  Republicans  82  for  and 
1  against,  and  the  Americans  15  against. 

In  the  Senate  a  motion  was  made  February  1  to  take  up  the 
bill.    On  this  the  vote  stood  28  to  28  and  the  vote  of  Vice-Presi- 

■ 

dent  Breekenridge,  of  Kentucky,  decided  the  motion  in  the  neg- 
ative. On  February  25  the  bill  to  appropriate  $30,000,000  for 
the  purchase  of  Cuba  was  before  the  Senate.  During  the  even- 
ing, Doolittle,  of  Wisconsin,  moved  to  take  up  the  homestead 
bill.37  Andrew  Johnson,  a  staunch  supporter  of  the  bill,  asked 
Doolittle  to  withdraw  his  motion  as  it  was  needlessly  antagoniz- 
ing the  friends  of  the  Cuba  bill.  Douglas  and  Rice  made  sim- 
ilar requests.38  A  speech  of  Toombs  accusing  the  opponents  of 
the  Cuba  bill  with  cowardice  called  forth  the  report  of  Wade, 
"The  question  will  be,  shall  we  give  niggers  to  the  niggerless,  or 
lands  to  the  landless?"39  What  seemed  at  first  only  a  struggle 
for  precedence  between  the  bills  was  in  fact  a  contest  between 
two  opposing  doctrines.40  The  motion  to  take  up  the  bill 
failed.41  A  number  of  votes  from  the  free  states  were  found  in 
opposition  to  the  motion,42  while  only  one  vote  from  a  slave  state, 
that  of  Johnson,  of  Tennessee,  was  cast  in  favor  of  it.  It  was 
then  too  late  in  the  session  to  make  another  effort  for  the  bill. 
Before  adjournment  that  evening,  Brown,  of  Mississippi,  a 
friend  of  the  Cuba  bill,  moved  to  lay  it  on  the  table  in  order  to 
secure  a  test  vote  upon  it.  The  motion  was  lost,  18  to  30.  The 
only  difference  between  this  vote  and  the  one  on  the  homestead 

38  Globe,  2d  sess.  35th  Cong.,  727. 
37  Ibid.,  1351. 

3SIbid.,  1352. 

39  Ibid.,  1354. 

40  Seward  said  :  "The  homestead  bill  is  a  question  of  homes,  of  homes  for  the 
landless  freemen  of  the  United  States.  The  Cuba  bill  is  a  question  of  slaves  for 
the  slaveholders  of  the  United  States."     Ibid.,  1353. 

41  The  vote  was  19  to  20. 

42  One  vote  from  Rhode  Island,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania.  Delaware,  Ohio,  Indi- 
ana, Oregon,  and  California,  and  two  votes  from  Minnesota,  Ibid.,  1362. 

(319) 


58  BULLETIN  OF  THE   UNIVERSITY  OF  WISCONSIN. 

bill  was  that  Johnson  voted  against  the  motion,  two  senators 
who  had  voted  before  were  now  paired,  and  there  were  two  new 
votes,  one  from  Maryland  for  and  one  from  Oregon  against  the 
motion.43 

With  its  usual  promptness  the  House  passed  a  homestead  bill 
at  the  next  Congress.44  The  vote  was  115  tow  65.  From  Penn- 
sylvania and  Delaware  came  the  only  free  state  votes  against  it, 
while  Missouri  was  the  only  slave  state  in  which  a  representative 
favored  the  bill.  The  affirmative  vote  was  cast  by  90  Republi- 
cans and  25  Democrats  while  48  Democrats  and  17  Americans 
made  up  the  negative.45  The  bill  differed  in  one  important  par- 
ticular from  the  previous  ones.  Under  it  the  settler  could  enter 
160  acres  of  land  held  at  $1.25  an  acre  or  80  acres  at  $2.50, 
thus  partially  opening  up  the  reserved  railroad  lands.46 

Andrew  Johnson  had  introduced  a  homestead  bill  in  the  Sen- 
ate which  was  under  consideration  when  the  other  bill  was  re- 
ceived from  the  House.  The  essential  difference  between  the 
bills  as  regards  railroad  lands  was  that  one  hundred  and  sixty 
acres  of  the  reserved  lands  could  be  entered  under  the  Senate  bill 
and  only  eighty  acres  under  the  House  bill.  There  was  considera- 
ble discussion,  however,  over  which  of  the  bills  should  be  acted 
upon,  but  the  point  in  regard  to  the  railroad  lands  was  not  men- 
tioned. During  the  discussion  Pugh  cited  the  Southern  Pacific 
bill,  then  before  Congress,  as  an  example  of  a  donation  of  pub- 
lic land  supported  by  the  South.  Wigfall,  of  Texas,  claimed 
that  a  grant  to  the  Southern  Pacific  could  be  made  under  the 
power  given  the  government  to  transport  the  mails  and  to  pro- 
vide for  an  army  and  navy.  He  further  argued  that  the  railroad 
would  increase  the  value  of  the  remaining  public  lands  while 
under  the  homestead  bill  only  the  poorer  lands  would  be  left  to 
the  government.47 

On  April  17,  Johnson  reported  from  the  committee  on  Pub- 

43  Ibid.,  1363.     See  Rhodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  II,  352-54. 

**  On  March  12. 

45  Globe,  1st  sess.  36th  Cong.,  1115. 

48  Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  33C. 

17  Globe,  1st  sess.  36th  Cong.,  1528. 

(320) 


SANBORN — RAILROAD  LAND  GRANTS.  59 

lie  Lands  a  substitute  for  both  tlie  bills.  This  provided  for  the 
right  of  pre-emption  by  an  actual  settler  at  twenty-five  cents  an 
acre.48  Wade  moved  to  substitute  the  House  bill  for  the  com- 
mittee's bill,  but  the  motion  was  lost.49  Again  we  find  the  free 
and  slave  states  arrayed  against  each  other.  The  two  far  west- 
ern states,  California  and  Oregon,  voted  against  the  motion, 
however,  as  did  Delaware,  while  Pennsylvania  was  divided.50 
The  bill  was  then  passed  by  a  decisive  majority.01 

The  House  insisted  on  its  original  bill  for  some  time,  but  as  the 
Senate  remained  firm  the  House  yielded  for  this  Congress,  in 
hope  of  obtaining  something  more  at  the  next.  In  reporting  the 
result  of  the  conference  to  the  House,  Colfax  stated  that  it  was 
the  best  that  could  be  secured.  He  said  he  wished  that  the  bill 
opened  up  the  railroad  lands  to  settlement,  but  it  was  impossible 
to  obtain  this  concession.52 

President  Buchanan  returned  the  bill  to  the  Senate  without 
approval.53  He  considered  the  price  charged  by  the  bill  as 
merely  nominal.  Regarding  the  bill  as  conferring  a  gift  of  the 
lands,  he  claimed  that  Congress  had  no  such  power  over  the  pub- 
lic domain.  Congress  as  the  trustee  of  the  lands  could  "dispose 
of"  the  lands  only  in  the  limited  sense  required  by  the  act  of 
those  creating  the  trust — the  States.  Nor  did  he  consider  it 
just  to  the  former  settlers  because  they  would  have  paid  the 
higher  price  for  their  lands.  It  was  also  unjust  to  the  holders  of 
land  warrants,  by  reducing  the  value  of  the  lands  to  which  they 
could  be  applied.  He  considered  the  law  wrong  also  in  its  dis- 
crimination in  favor  of  the  agricultural  class  and  in  its  offer  of 
inducements  to  emigration  from  the  old  states.  The  message 
closed  with  a  plea  for  the  continuance  of  the  system  of  holding 
the  lands  for  revenue,  which  in  his  opinion,  ought  to  amount  to 

48  Ibid.,  1751. 

48  26  to  31. 

60  Ibid,,  1999. 

"The  vote  stood  44  to  8.  Those  voting  against  the  bill  were  Bragg  (N.  C), 
Clingman  (N.  C),  Hamlin  (Me.),  Hunter  (Va.),  Mason  (Va.),  Pearce  (Md.), 
Powell   (Ky.),  and  Thomas  (Ga.).     Ibid.,  2043. 

62  Ibid.,  3179. 

83  June  22. 

(321) 


60  BULLETIN  OP  THE   UNIVERSITY  OF  WISCONSIN. 

$10,000,000  annually.54  After  some  discussion  the  vote  on  the 
passage  of  the  bill  over  the  veto  stood  27  to  18,  not  the  neces- 
sary two-thirds.55 

In  the  thirty-seventh  Congress  matters  were  very  radically 
changed.  The  chief  opponents  of  the  homestead  policy  were  no 
longer  sitting  in  that  body,  and  when  the  homestead  bill  came 
up  for  passage  in  the  House  only  16  votes  were  cast  against  it.56 
The  bill  was  very  similar  to  the  one  which  had  passed  the  House 
at  the  previous  Congress,  providing  for  the  entry  of  160  acres  of 
land  at  $1.25  an  acre,  or  80  acres  at  $2.50  an  acre.  Soon  after 
the  bill  passed  the  Senate,  the  vote  being  33  to  7,57  and  be- 
came a  law,  May  20,  1862. 

At  this  time  railroad  land  grants  again  came  to  the  front,  the 
first  bill  for  a  Pacific  railroad  being  passed  in  this  year,  when 
the  mass  of  the  southern  representatives  had  disappeared  from 
Congress,  under  the  pressure  of  the  military  importance 
of  the  road  to  the  Pacific  coast.  Grants  were  also  made  to 
Michigan,  Iowa,  and  Colorado.  The  next  vear  in  the  crant  to 
Kansas  an  important  change  was  made.  This  was  the  extension 
of  the  grant  from  six  to  ten  miles  on  each  side  of  the  road  and 
of  the  indemnity  limits  from  fifteen  to  twenty  miles.  This  was 
done  because  the  lands  along  the  line  had  been  so  largely  taken 
up  that  the  increased  grant  was  in  fact  no  larger  than  previous 
ones.58  But  having  been  done  once  in  a  particular  case  it  was 
continued  as  a  matter  of  practice  in  others. 

New  grants  continued  to  be  made  to  the  states  with  little  con- 
sideration, but  the  most  important  bills  were  those  renewing 
previous  state  grants  and  those  making  grants  to  corporations. 
The  crisis  of  1857  and  the  war  had  prevented  the  construction 

"Richardson.  Messages  and  Papas,  V,  (jOS-14. 

t!  Globe,  1st  s.ss.  ::t;th  Cong.,  3272. 

66  Those  votes  were  from  Rhode  Island  (1),  Pennsylvania  (1),  New  York  (21, 
Virginia  i2).  Tennessee  (1),  Kentucky  (7),  Missouri  (1),  and  Oregon  (1).  Globe, 
2d  sess.   37th   Cong.,  1035. 

57  The  negative  votes  were  from  Delaware  (2).  Virginia  (2),  Kentucky  (2),  and 
Oregon  (1).  Ibid..  1951.  The  fact  that  Oregon  had  had  a  special  homestead 
act  may  explain  the  opposition  of  that  state  to  a  more  general  law. 

M  Globe,  3d  sess.  37th  Cong.,  115S. 

(322) 


SANBORN RAILROAD    LAND    GRANTS.  61 

of  many  of  the  land  grant  roads  and  these  grounds  were  urged 
for  a  renewal.59  The  same  extension  of  the  grants  to  ten  and 
twenty  miles  was  made  as  in  the  other  acts,  on  the  same  plea 
of  the  taking  up  of  the  lands."0  The  interest  taken  in  the  bills 
may  be  seen  in  a  remark  of  Senator  Morrill,  who  said  that  he  did 
"not  know  that  anybody  takes  any  interest  in  them  except  as  a 
matter  of  locality."61 

69  "The  financial  trouble  of  1857,  and  then  the  war  coming  on,  prevented  the  con- 
struction of  many  roads."  Speech  of  Hendricks  in  Mouse,  May  25,  18G6.  Globe, 
1st  sess.   39th  Cong.,  2S20. 

80  Globe,  1st  sess.  3Sth  Cong.,  1034. 

81  Ibid.,  1744. 


(323) 


62  BULLETIN   OF   THE   UNIVERSITY  OF  WISCONSIN. 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE     PACIFIC    RAILROADS. 

Projects  for  a  railway  from  the  valley  of  the  Mississippi  to  the 
Pacific  coast  followed  not  long  after  the  exploration  of  the  vast 
tract  of  land  purchased  from  Prance  in  1803.  The  western  and 
northern  limits  of  that  purchase  were  long  in  dispute,  but  this 
seems  to  have  furnished  a  stronger  motive  for  hastening  its  set- 
tlement. 

The  first  public  advocate  of  such  a  road  seems  to  have  been 
one  Hart  well  Carter,  who,  in  1S32,  presented  his  plan  in  the 
New  York  Courier  and  Inquirer.  He  proposed  to  build  a  road 
from  Lake  Michigan  to  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia  and  to  San 
Prancisco,  on  condition  that  he  should  receive  a  strip  of  land  for 
the  whole  distance  and  the  privilege  of  buying  8,000,000  acres 
of  public  lands  at  $1.25  an  acre,  to  be  paid  for  in  the  stock  of  the 
company.1  During  the  early  forties,  John  Plumbe  presented  a 
plan  to  Congress  for  the  building  of  a  transcontinental  road. 
This  included  a  grant  of  alternate  sections  of  land  on  each  side 
of  the  road,  a  plan  similar  to  the  other  grants  which  were  being 
urged  at  this  time.2 

The  most  prominent  of  all  the  advocates  of  a  Pacific  railroad 
was  Asa  Whitney.  His  first  plan,  as  set  forth  in  a  memorial  to 
Congress  in  1845,  involved  a  grant  to  him  of  a  strip  of  land  60 
miles  wide,  extending  from  Lake  Michigan  to  the  Pacific.  On 
this  he  would  build  a  railroad,  selling  the  land  as  needed,  and  re- 
taining for  his  own  use  that  which  might  remain  after  the  com- 
pletion of  the  railroad.3     The  next  year  he  repeated  his  request, 

1  Bancroft.  California,  VII,  49S-9. 

2  Ibid..  500. 

'Reports  of  Committees,  1st  sess.  Slst  Cong.,  No.  140,  p.  23. 

(324)  ' 


SANBORN — RAILROAD  LAND  GRANTS.  63 

accompanied  by  an  account  of  his  exploration  of  the  proposed 
route  during  the  previous  summer.4  In  1848  lie  presented  a 
modified  plan  by  which  he  was  to  be  allowed  the  lands  along  the 
line  at  16  cents  an  acre,  which  he  was  to  receive  in  alternate  five 
mile  sections  as  each  ten  miles  of  the  road  were  finished.5  In 
1850  "Whitney  secured  a  favorable  report  from  the  House  Com- 
mittee on  Eoads  and  Canals.  This  advocated  his  plan  as  the 
most  practicable  one  that  had  been  advanced,  gave  preference  to 
the  northern  route,  and  based  the  constitutionality  of  the  land 
grant  on  the  ground  that  it  was  not  an  appropriation  of  the  pub- 
lic lands  or  their  proceeds,  but  an  acceptance  of  an  offer  to  buy 
lands  otherwise  unsalable.6  The  bill  accompanying  the  report 
authorized  Whitney  to  construct  a  road  from  Lake  Michigan  to 
the  Pacific.  The  lands  for  thirty  miles  on  each  side  of  the  road 
were  to  be  sold  to  Whitney  for  ten  cents  an  acre.  Deficiencies 
in  lands  along  the  road  were  to  be  made  up  from  such  lands  as  he 
might  select.7 

The  opposition  to  Whitney's  plan  came  largely  from  the  advo- 
cates of  a  "National"  road,  that  is,  one  built  by  the  general  gov- 
ernment. In  1849  Benton  advocated  a  bill  setting  aside  seventy- 
five  per  cent,  of  the  money  received  from  the  public  lands  in  Cal- 
ifornia and  Oregon,  and  fifty  per  cent,  in  the  other  states  and  ter- 
ritories, for  the  construction  of  a  road  from  St.  Louis  to  San 
Francisco,  and  a  branch  to  the  Columbia.  A  strip  of  land  one 
mile  in  width  was  to  be  set  aside  for  the  road.8  The  advocates  of 
a  "National"  road  opposed  Whitney's  plan  on  the  grounds  that  it 
was  too  great  for  private  management,  that  individuals  could  not 
treat  with  the  Indian  tribes,  and  that  the  government  should  not 
assist  in  a  "stockjobbing"  enterprise.9  On  the  other  hand  Whit- 
ney also  cited  the  magnitude  of  the  work  as  an  objection  to  gov- 

Mbid.,  p.  27. 

6  Ibid.,  p.  36. 

0  Ibid.,  pp.  1-19. 

7  Ibid.,  p.  43. 

8  Globe,  2d  scss.  30th  Cong.,  473-4. 
•  See  speech  of  Benton,  Ibid.,  472. 

(325) 


64  BULLETIN  OF  THE   UNIVERSITY  OF  WISCONSIN. 

eminent  control  and  claimed  that  there  was  danger  of  party  dom- 
ination and  clash  of  sectional  interests  in  the"National"  plan.10 

Neither  Whitney's  nor  the  "National"  plan  received  much 
attention  from  Congress.  The  matter  of  a  Pacific  road  was  not 
so  simple  in  1850  as  it  had  heen  in  1845.  When  Whitney  first 
brought  forward  his  plan,  our  Pacific  coast  did  not  extend  south 
of  latitude  42°.  Only  Puget  Sound  and  the  mouth  of  the  Col- 
umbia, both  necessitating  a  northern  route,  were  available  as 
western  termini  of  a  Pacific  railroad.  But  in  1848  California 
was  added  to  our  territory,  San  Francisco  and  Monterey  entered 
the  field  as  candidates  for  the  terminus  of  the  road,  and  a  south- 
ern route  became  a  possibility.  The  natural  economic  rivalry  be- 
tween the  two  sections  was  increased  by  the  question  of  slavery 
and  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise.  It  is  small  wonder, 
to  one  familiar  with  the  history  of  the  country  from  1850  to 
1860,  that  a  project  which  meant  so  much  for  or  against  the 
prosperity  of  one  section  or  another  failed  to  receive  the  assent  of 
Congress. 

From  1850  on,  the  question  of  a  Pacific  railroad  was  one  of 
route,  not  of  constitutionality.  The  northern  route,  from  the 
Great  Lakes  to  the  Columbia,  received  also  the  support  of  the 
East.  The  central  route,  from  Memphis  or  St.  Louis  via  the 
South  Pass  to  San  Francisco,  had  many  supporters  among  the 
central  and  southern  states.  The  southern  route  ran  from  Texas 
via  the  valley  of  the  Gila.11 

In  1853  the  projects  came  most  prominently  before  Congress. 
Rusk,  of  Texas,  had  introduced  a  bill  for  a  road  on  the  southern 
route  with  branches  northeast  and  northwest.  Alternate  sections 
for  forty  miles  on  each  side  of  the  road  were  granted  to  aid  in  its 
construction.  As  the  road  was  only  within  the  territories,  grants 
were  made  to  Iowa,  Missouri,  Louisiana,  Arkansas,  and  California 
for  extensions  through  those  states.12     Gwin,  of  California,  in- 


10  Bancroft,  California,  VII,  507-8;  citing  Whitney,  A  Project  for  a  Railroad  to 
the  Pacific. 

11  See  Davis,  Union  Pacific  Railway,  Chicago,     1894,  38-42. 

12  Globe,  2d  sess.  32d  Cong.,  2S0. 

(326) 


SANBORN — RAILROAD    LAND    GRANTS.  65 

troduced  a  bill  for  a  line  from  San  Francisco  to  Memphis,  via 
Fulton,  with  brandies  to  Dubuque,  St.  Louis,  Matagorda,  New 
Orleans,  and  Fort  Nisqually.  The  odd  numbered  sections  for 
forty  miles  on  each  side  of  the  road  in  the  territories  and  Cali- 
fornia, and  for  twenty  miles  in  the  other  states,  were  to  be 
granted.13 

The  latter  bill  was  an  attempt  to  satisfy  and  harmonize  all  the 
conflicting  and  sectional  interests.  Rusk's  bill  had  been  referred 
to  a  select  committee  which  reported  a  bill  which  attempted  to 
solve  the  matter  by  leaving  the  selection  of  the  route  to  the  pres- 
ident, and  providing  for  a  grant  of  alternate  sections  for  six  miles 
on  each  side  of  the  road  in  the  states,  and  for  twelve  miles  in  the 
territories,  together  with  $20,000,000  in  bonds.14  The  bill  re- 
ported by  the  committee  was  discussed  at  some  length  but  no 
action  was  taken.  The  land  grant  feature  of  the  bill  attracted 
little  attention,  being  overshadowed  by  the  question  of  location 
and  by  the  question  of  the  power  of  Congress  to  create  a  corpora- 
tion. In  1855  a  bill  providing  for  roads  on  all  three  routes  and 
making  a  grant  of  lands  of  alternate  sections  for  twelve  miles  on 
each  side  of  the  lines  passed  the  Senate  by  a  vote  of  24  to  21.15 
There  was  little  discussion  of  the  land  grant.  Indeed,  the 
power  to  grant  lands  in  aid  of  the  Pacific  roads  seems  to  have 
been  assumed  even  by  the  opponents  of  grants  to  the  states. 
Niles,  the  persistent  enemy  of  the  state  grants,  was  an  advocate 
of  Whitney's  plan.16  In  the  House  a  bill  providing  for  a  Pacific 
railroad  was  passed  but  the  vote  was  immediately  reconsidered. 
Nothing  was  done  with  the  Senate  bill.17 

Sectional  differences  increased  as  the  war  drew  near,  yet  there 

13  Ibid.,  281. 

14  Ibid..    l<;!i-70. 

w  Globe,  :id  sess.  33d  Cong..  814. 

15  June  27,  1848,  he  introduced  a  bill  granting  lauds  to  Whitney  for  a  railroad 
to  the  racific  (Globe,  1st  sess.  30th  Cong.,  875).  July  29  ha  endeavored  to 
secure  the  consideration  of  his  bill  (Ibid.,  Kill  i.  and  on  August  8  he  moved  it  as 
an  amendmo!>t  to  a  land-grant  bill  (Ibid..  1051).  On  January  29,  1849,  he  again 
moved  to  take  up  his  bill  {Globe,  2d  sess.  30th  Cong.,  381).  Davis,  p.  32,  says 
that  the  article  in  Hunt's  Merchants'  Magazine  for  July,  1849,  on  Whitney's  plan 
was  by  Nlles.     I  have  found  nothing  to  coniirm  this  statement. 

"Davis,  Union  Pat  ',  lltcay,  G4-65. 

(327) 


66  BULLETIN  OF  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  WISCONSIN. 

is  a  possibility  that  even  if  there  had  been  no  secession  of  the 
southern  states  a  Pacific  railroad  bill  might  have  been  passed. 
In  1861  a  bill  for  roads  on  the  central  and  southern  routes,  passed 
the  House.  The  Senate  added  a  road  on  the  northern  route,  to- 
gether with  various  other  amendments,  and  there  was  not  time 
for  the  House  to  act  on  the  amended  bill.ls 

At  the  next  session  of  Congress  the  law  for  the  Union  Pacific 
railroad  was  enacted.  The  only  contest  was  between  the  St. 
Louis  and  Chicago  interests.19  The  act  granted  the  company 
created  by  it  five  alternate  sections  on  each  side  of  the  road,  with 
indemnity  limits  of  ten  miles.20 

The  inducements  of  this  act  were  not,  however,  sufficient  to 
persuade  capitalists  to  invest  in  the  enterprise.21  The  next  Con- 
gress received  appeals  for  further  aid,  and  a  bill  was  passed  in- 
creasing the  bonds  and  raising  the  grant  of  land  from  five  to  ten 
sections  a  mile.22  The  increase  in  the  grant  was  made  without 
discussion,  the  only  argument  being  over  the  other  features  of 
the  bill. 

Opposition  to  land  grants  had  by  this  time  almost  vanished,, 
and  at  this  session  of  Congress  grants  were  made  to  the  Northern 
Pacific  and  to  various  connecting  lines  of  the  Union  Pacific.  In 
1866  grants  were  made  to  the  Southern  Pacific  and  to  the  Atlan- 
tic and  Pacific.  The  year  1871  saw  the  last  of  the  land  grants,, 
that  provided  by  the  Texas  and  Pacific  bill. 

The  Pacific  railroad  proposition  was  thus  advanced  as  early  as 
the  plans  to  aid  the  railroad  in  the  states  by  means  of  the  public 
lands.  That  it  was  so  long  in  securing  the  assent  of  Congress  was 
due  to  the  sectional  differences  which  arose  as  soon  as  the  road  on 


1S  Ibid.,  94-95.  Gwin  (Memoirs,  MS.)  says  that  action  was  deferred  so  that  the 
new  administration  might  have  the  credit  for  the  measure.  Bancroft,  California, 
VII,  527. 

19  Davis,  Union  Pacific  Railway,  9S-103. 

20  "That  there  be,  and  is  hereby,  granted  .  .  .  every  alternate  section  of 
public  land,  designated  by  odd  numbers,  to  the  amount  of  five  alternate  sections 
per  mile  on  each  side  of  said  road,  on  the  line  thereof,  and  within  the  limits  of 
ten  miles  on  each  side  of  said  road."     Statutes  at  Large,  XII,  492. 

21  Davis.  Union  Pacific  Railway,  110-115. 
'-  Statutes  at  Large,  XIII,  356. 

(328) 


SANBORN — RAILROAD    LAND    GRANTS.  67 

one  or  the  other  of  the  possible  routes  was  proposed.  The  con- 
stitutionality of  the  measure  was  not  questioned  to  any  great  ex- 
tent, and  the  political  necessity  of  a  road  on  some  route  was  gen- 
erally admitted.  Then,  too,  the  enterprise  could  be  carried  out 
within  the  territories,  and  no  question  of  interference  with  the 
rights  of  a  sovereign  state  could  arise.  In  consequence  of  the  re- 
striction of  the  road  to  the  territories  the  grant  had  either  to  be 
made  to  a  corporation  or  the  work  done  directly  by  the  govern- 
ment The  latter  plan  was  never  seriously  considered,  so  the 
essential  difference  between  the  Pacific  and  the  other  grants  was 
the  person  to  whom  they  were  made.  Where  the  Pacific  road 
was  to  be  extended  beyond  the  territories  the  states  were  to  re- 
ceive the  grants.  This  distinction  did  not,  however,  hold  in  the 
case  of  later  grants  as  the  relaxation  of  the  states'  rights  doctrine 
caused  Congress  to  make  grants  to  the  corporations  even  where 
the  roads  ran  through  the  states. 

Numerically,  the  Pacific  grants  were  the  most  important,  as 
they  covered  a  greater  area  than  the  grants  made  by  the  states. 
Yet  their  political  importance  has  not  been  as  great.  At  the  time 
the  grants  were  made  Congress  did  not  bestow  the  attention  upon 
them  it  did  upon  the  state  grants,  nor  did  thev  have  as  great  an 
effect  upon  the  land  policy  of  the  government.  Since  the  roads 
were  provided  for  they  have  been  of  importance  in  the  politics  of 
the  country,  but  in  connection  with  the  bonds  issued  in  favor  of 
the  companies  rather  than  in  regard  to  the  lands  granted  them. 
The  effect  of  the  grants  and  the  methods  by  which  the  roads  ad- 
ministered them  were,  of  course,  very  marked  in  the  states  and 
territories  where  the  lands  were  located.  This  part  of  the  ques- 
tion has  been  reserved  for  a  later  discussion. 


(3-29) 


68  .BULLETIN  OP   THE   UNIVERSITY  OP  WISCONSIN. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE  REPEAL,  OF  THE  LAND  GRANTS. 

Even  before  the  grants  to  railroads  ceased,  a  movement  was 
started  to  revoke  some  of  the  grants  already  made.  At  first  this 
movement  was  not  based  on  objections  to  the  system  but  on  the 
cases  of  individual  roads  where  it  was  alleged  that  the  conditions 
of  the  granting  acts  had  not  been  fulfilled. 

Many  grants  had  been  made  during  185 G.  The  crisis  of  the 
following  year  and  the  war  were  effectual  checks  to  railroad 
building  even  in  the  northern  states.  In  the  South  it  was  at  a 
standstill.  This  involved  non-compliance  with  the  conditions 
of  the  grants,  and  an  effort  was  made  to  secure  their  forfeiture. 
A  bill  forfeiting  the  grants  to  the  southern  states  was  introduced 
during  the  second  session  of  the  fortieth  Congress.  Not  only  was 
it  urged  that  the  roads  had  not  been  constructed  but  that  the 
states  had  been  disloyal,  and  so  merited  the  forfeiture  as  a  pun- 
ishment. The  argument  was  an  effective  one  in  the  House  and 
the  bill  passed  83  to  75,1  but  was  not  acted  on  in  the  Senate.  At 
the  previous  session  of  Congress  a  committee  had  been  appointed 
to  investigate  the  southern  railroads  and  report  on  their  use  dur- 
ing the  war  and  on  the  forfeiture  of  the  grants.  A  report  was 
made  December  11,  1867,  but  the  forfeiture  of  the  grants  was 
not  considered  in  it.2  A  report  on  this  matter  had  been  called 
for  by  a  resolution  of  July  12,  1867,3  and  on  February  7,  1868, 
the  committee  reported  itself  unable  to  arrive  at  any  conclusion 
on  the  subject.  This  seems  to  have  ended  the  matter.4  A  con- 
stitutional   amendment   prohibiting  the   disposal  of  the    public 

1  Globe,  2d  sess.  40th  Cong.,  310,  9S5. 

"Reports  of  Committees,  2d  sess.  40th  Cong.,  No.  3. 

•  House  Journal,  1st  sess.  40th  Cong..  192. 

4 Reports  of  Committees,  2nd.  sess.  40th.  Cong.,  No.  13. 

(330) 


ANB0RN — RAILROAD  LAND  GRANTS.  69 

lands  to  any  but  actual  settlors  was  introduced,  but  a  resolution 
to  suspend  the  rules  on  its  passage  failed.  Similar  resolutions 
were  introduced  the  next  year  but  were  not  considered.5 

On  the  other  hand  requests  were  still  received  from  the  states 
for  grants  in  aid  of  railroads.0  The  weight  of  opinion,  however, 
seemed  to  be.  in  favor  of  a  discontinuance  of  the  grants.7 

The  opposition  of  land  grants  was  of  a  two-fold  nature.  Many 
who  did  not  believe  that  any  new  grants  should  be  made  admitted 
that  the  former  ones  were  justified  but  that  the  changed  condi- 
tions of  the  country  had  removed  the  necessity  for  a  continuance 
of  the  system.  The  population  of  the  western  states  had  in- 
creased until  any  aid  which  ought  to  be  furnished  new  railroads 
could  come  from  the  country  through  which  they  passed.  And, 
in  fact,  the  new  states  were  well  provided  with  railroads  and  fur- 
ther building  needed  to  be  discouraged  rather  than  aided.  The 
result  of  these  conditions  was  that  practically  no  effort  was  made 
to  secure  new  grants  of  lands.  But  not  only  had  a  change  oc- 
curred in  the  conditions  of  the  country,  rendering  land  grants  out 
of  place,  but  the  theory  of  the  use  of  the  public  lands  had  also 
completely  changed.  The  dominant  idea  was  now  that  of  the 
homestead  law.  As  a  source  of  revenue  the  public  lands  had 
failed,  nor  was  it  felt  that  such  was  their  mission.  The  lands 
were  to  be  used  for  the  benefit  of  the  settlers  and  nothing  should 
be  allowed  to  interfere  with  that  use.  Such  wTas  the  general  feel- 
ing in  the  country  after  the  war.     Out  of  this  grew  the  demand 

6  Ames,  Proposed  Amendments  of  the  Constitution,  Report  of  the  American 
Historical  Association,  1896,  II,  1S2. 

6  Alabama  (House  Misc.  Docs.,  2d  sess.  42d  Cong..  Nos.  54,  89,  90,  91)  ;  Wis- 
consin (Ibid.,  No.  125)  ;  Oregon,  (House  Misc.  Docs.,  3d  sess.  42d  Cong.,  No.  27)  ; 
Idaho  (Ibid.,  No.  28). 

7  G.  W.  Julian,  in  the  International  Review  for  February-March,  1883,  speak- 
ing of  the  opposition  to  land  grants,  says:  "This  found  expression  in  the  press, 
in  numerous  gatherings  of  the  people  throughout  the  Northern  and  Western 
states,  in  the  platforms  of  both  the  great  political  parties,  in  the  resolves  or 
state  legislatures,  and  in  the  second  annual  message  of  President  Grant.  In 
which  he  condemned  the  policy  of  any  further  grants  of  lands  to  railroads,  and 
recommended  the  dedication  of  the  public  domain  to  actual  settlement  under  the 
Homestead  and  Pre-emption  laws."  I  have  given  the  main  indications  of  public 
sentiment  of  this  period  which  I  have  found,  and  beyond  these  can  find  no  further 
justification  for  the  statements  of  Mr.  Julian.  I  am  inclined  to  think  that,  writ- 
ing at  a  later  date,  he  exaggerated  the  state  of  popular  feeling  on  the  subject. 

(33!) 


70  BULLETIN  OP  THE   UNIVERSITY  OF  WISCONSIN. 

for  the  repeal  of  tlie  land  grants  where  the  conditions  of  the  act 
had  not  been  fully  complied  with. 

As  early  as  1870,  the  grant  to  Louisiana  in  aid  of  the  Xew  Or- 
leans, Opelousas,  and  Great  Western  was  declared  forfeited.3 
It  was,  however,  considered  that  the  grants  lapsed  of  their  own 
accord  on  the  non-fulfillment  of  the  conditions.  But  in  1876  the 
supreme  court  decided  that  the  lands  granted  reverted  to  the  gov- 
ernment onlv  after  action  had  been  taken  to  assert  the  forfeiture.9 
The  same  year  a  bill  was  passed  forfeiting  the  unearned  lands 
of  the  Leavenworth,  Lawrence,  and  Galveston  road.  The  only 
difference  of  opinion  was  on  the  disposition  of  the  forfeited  lands, 
which  were  finally  made  subject  to  entry  under  the  homestead 
law  only.  In  1877  a  bill  was  passed  repealing  the  grant  in  aid  of 
the  Kansas  and  Neosho  Valley  company.  It  was  stated  that  this 
was  done  at  the  request  of  the  company  on  account  of  the  hostil- 
ity of  settlers  along  the  line.10 

During  the  next  six  years  various  attempts  were  made  to  secure 
the  forfeiture  of  other  grants,  but  it  was  not  until  the  session  of 
1883-84  that  the  movement  was  strong  enough  to  secure  much 
attention  from  Congress.  xVt  this  session  twenty-four  bills  were 
introduced  in  the  House  and  five  in  the  Senate  forfeiting  lands 
granted  to  railroads. 

In  the  House  the  bills  were  sent  to  the  committee  on  Public 
Lands  which  reported  a  bill  forfeiting  a  number  of  the  grants,  all 
of  them  being  in  the  southern  states.11  An  attempt  was  made  to 
except  the  Gulf  and  Ship  Island  but  the  bill  was  passed  as  re- 
ported.12 In  the  Senate  the  bill  was  not  taken  up.  The  House 
also  passed  a  bill  forfeiting  the  unearned  lands  of  the  Atlantic 
and  Pacific.13   There  was  little  discussion  on  this  and  no  division. 


8  Statutes  at  Large,  XVI,  277. 

9 Bohulen'oerg  v.  Harriman,  21  Wallace,  44.     See  pp.  80-S1. 

10  Record,  2d  sess.  44th  Cong.,  1510. 

11  Gulf  and  Ship  Island  ;  Mobile  and  New  Orleans  ;  Tuscaloosa  to  the  Mobile 
road  ;  Elyton  and  Beard's  Bluff  ;  Memphis  and  Charleston  ;  Iron  Mountain  and 
Southern  in  Arkansas  ;  and  New  Orleans  to  the  state  line.  House  Reports,  1st 
sess  48th  Cong.,  No.  S. 

12  Record,  1st  sess.     48th  Cong.,  787. 

13  Ibid.,  4888. 

(332) 


SANBORN — RAILROAD    LAND    GRANTS.  71 

In  the  Senate  the  bill  was  discussed  at  some  length  by  Morgan, 
of  Alabama.  He  said  that  the  committee  on  Public  Lands  had  re- 
ceived very  contradictory  opinions  in  regard  to  the  power  of  the 
government  in  the  matter.  To  settle  the  question  of  the  right  to 
declare  a  forfeiture  he  proposed  an  amendment  conferring  jur- 
isdiction on  the  circuit  court  for  the  western  district  of  Missouri 
to  try  the  title  to  the  lands,  with  the  right  of  appeal  to  the  su- 
preme court.  This  amendment  was  adopted,  31  to  ll.1*  He  fur- 
ther claimed  that  by  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1871,  which  al- 
lowed a  mortgage  of  lands  held  by  the  company,  the  government 
had  waived  its  right  of  forfeiture.15 

The  bill,  as  amended,  passed  the  Senate  without  division,16 
and  went  over  to  the  next  session  of  the  House.  At  that  time  the 
House  refused  to  agree  to  the  Senate  amendment.  Two  com- 
mittees of  conference  were  appointed  but  both  failed  to  agree. 

The  Senate  did  not,  however,  hold  consistently  to  its  position 
in  favor  of  a  judicial  determination  of  the  right  and  power  of  the 
government  in  the  forfeiture  of  railroad  lands,  for  an  amendment 
offered  by  Morgan  to  the  bill  repealing  the  grant  to  the  Oregon 
Central,  proposing  to  settle  the  question  in  the  same  manner 
as  by  his  previous  amendment,  was  defeated,  15  to  28.17  The 
same  amendment  when  offered  to  the  Texas  Pacific  bill  was  re- 
jected, 24  to  31-.18 

At  the  next  session  the  bill  forfeiting  the  unearned  lands  of 
the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  became  a  law,  but  the  Senate  and  the 
House  were  unable  to  agree  as  to  the  extent  of  the  forfeiture  of 
the  Northern  Pacific  lands.  The  bill  as  it  passed  the  Senate  pro- 
vided for  the  forfeiture  of  the  lands  along  portions  of  the  road 
not  then  completed.  The  House  amended  the  bill  by  providing 
for  a  forfeiture  of  all  lands  opposite  to  portions  of  the  road  not 
finished  by  July  4,  1879,  the  date  fixed  in  the  granting  act  for 

14  Ibid.,  5941,  5964. 

15  Ibid.,  5CS6. 
18  Ibid.,  5966. 

17  Record,  2nd  sess.     48th  Cong.,  482. 
"Ibid.,  1895. 

6  (a33) 


72  BULLETIN    OF  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF   WISCONSIN. 

the  completion  of  the  whole  road.19  The  Senate  refused  to 
agree  to  this  and  conferences  held  during  this  and  the  next  ses- 
sion were  unavailing. 

By  1888  the  attempts  to  secure  the  forfeiture  of  separate 
grants  were  succeeded  by  attempts  to  forfeit  all  unearned  grants. 
A  bill  introduced  that  year  in  the  Senate  provided  for  the  for- 
feiture of  all  lands  "opposite  to  and  coterminous  with  the  por- 
tions of  any  such  railroad,  not  now  completed  and  in  opera- 
tion."20 

This  passed  the  Senate  after  considerable  discussion  as  to  the 
rights  of  individual  roads.  The  ayes  and  nays  were  not  taken  on 
its  passage.21  This  bill  would  have  forfeited  lands  along  1,049 
miles  of  road.22  The  House  committee  on  Public  Lands,  to 
which  the  bill  was  referred,  made  three  reports.  The  majority 
favored  the  forfeiture  of  the  lands  opposite  all  portions  of  the 
roads  not  completed  within  the  time  required.23  A  minority  of 
three  favored  the  Senate  bill,  and  another  minority  of  two  wished 
to  forfeit  the  entire  grants  in  all  cases  where  the  conditions  had 
riot  been  strictly  complied  with.  These  three,  which  were  prob- 
ably all  the  possible  plans  of  forfeiture,  were  thus  presented  to 
Congress.  The  most  radical  one  was  defeated  in  the  House  by 
a  vote  of  60  to  106.  Those  favoring  this  proposition  came  from 
all  sections  of  the  country  and  it  is  impossible  to  determine  any 
particular  reason  for  the  vote  standing  as  it  did.  The  party  di- 
vision was,  however,  quite  strongly  marked,  as  only  9  Republi- 
cans favored  the  amendment.24  The  Senate  proposition  was  then 
voted  down  71  to  92.  The  chief  opposition  to  this  measure 
seemed  to  come  from  the  western  states.  Only  13  Dem- 
ocrats favored  it  while  only  23  Republicans  voted  against  it25 
The  amendment  bill  passed  the  House,  179  to  8.26     The  Senate 

19  Record,  1st  sess.    49th  Cong.,  7613. 

20  Record,  1st  sess.     50th  Cong.,  3033. 

21  Ibid.,  3S78. 

22  House  Reports,  1st  sess.  50th  Cong.,  No.  2476. 

23  This  would  have  forfeited  lands  opposite  4,598  miles.      Ibid. 
21  Record,  1st  sess.  50th  Cong.,  5933. 

26  Ibid.,  5935. 

28  Ibid.,  5939.  t 

(334) 


SANBORN RAILROAD  LAND  GRANTS.  73 

refused  to  accept  the  House  amendment  and  the  matter  went 
over  to  the  next  Congress. 

These  three  plans  of  forfeiture  may  be  considered  both  from 
the  standpoint  of  equity  and  legality.  On  neither  ground  could 
exception  be  taken  to  the  Senate  proposition  forfeiting  lands  op- 
posite to  the  then  uncompleted  portions  of  the  roads.  The  time 
for  their  completion  had  expired  and  Congress  was  in  no  wise 
bound  to  extend  that  time.  But  the  forfeiture  of  all  lands  earned 
since  the  expiration  of  the  time  specified  in  the  laws  has  a  dif- 
ferent aspect.  It  had  been  well  understood,  both  by  Congress 
and  the  roads,  that  the  forfeiture  did  not  work  without  Congres- 
sional action.  The  repeated  failures  of  Congress  to  so  act  were 
therefore  in  effect  an  extension  of  the  grants  and  Congress  was 
estopped  from  going  back  and  annulling  its  previous  action.  In 
ordinary  cases  negative  action  would  not  have  the  strength  of 
positive,  but  where,  as  in  the  case  of  grants  on  condition  subse- 
quent, one  party  was  regarded  as  agreeing  to  the  acts  of  the  other 
unless  an  express  statement  to  the  contrary  was  made,  its  nega- 
tive action  was  equivalent  to  a  sanction  of  the  act.  It  is  also  im- 
probable that  such  a  law  would  have  been  upheld  by  the  supreme 
court  as  they  had  stated  in  regard  to  the  St.  Joseph  and  Denver 
Tailroad  that  "so  far  as  that  portion  of  the  road  which  was  com- 
pleted and  accepted,  is  concerned,  the  contract  of  the  Company 
was  executed,  and  as  to  the  lands  patented,  the  transaction  on  the 
part  of  the  government  was  closed,  and  the  title  of  the  Company 
perfected."-7  In  the  face  of  such  language  the  legality  of  the 
act  proposed  by  the  House  was  very  doubtful.  As  to  the  most 
extreme  plan,  that  of  complete  forfeiture,  its  injustice  was  ap- 
parent. It  was  prompted  probably  more  by  a  general  feeling 
against  the  railroads  than  by  abuses  of  the  land  grant  system. 

At  the  next  Congress,  the  bill  in  almost  the  same  form  as  be- 
fore passed  the  Senate,28  and  was  again  referred  to  the  House 
committee  on  Public  Lands.     This  time  the  committee  reported 

2-  Van  Wyck  v.  Enevals,  106  U.  S.,  360. 
=s  Record,  1st  sess.  51st  Cong.,  3971. 

(335) 


74  BULLETIN  OP  THE   UNIVERSITY  OP  WISCONSIN. 

in  favor  of  the  Senate  plan.29  Stone,  of  Missouri,  introduced  an 
amendment  directing  the  attorney  general  to  bring  suit  to  forfeit 
all  lands  not  earned  within  the  time  required  by  law.  This  was 
rejected,  72  to  93. 30  Holman  introduced  an  amendment  forfeit- 
ing lands  along  all  portions  of  roads  not  completed  within  the 
time  prescribed.31  He  claimed  that  the  lands  forfeited  by  the 
Senate  bill  were  insignificant,  and  while  he  did  not  believe  that 
the  Senate  would  accept  his  amendment,  he  wished  to  place  the 
responsibility  upon  that  body.32  His  amendment  was  defeated 
by  a  vote  of  60  to  79,33  and  another  attempt  to  secure  the  same 
amendment  was  lost,  84  to  107.34 

The  Senate  disagreed  to  some  of  the  minor  amendments  of  the 
House  but  an  agreement  was  reached  and  the  bill  became  a  law 
September  29,  1890.35 

As  has  already  been  indicated,  the  action  taken  by  Congress 
was  practically  the  only  one  open  to  it.  "Whatever  may  have  been 
the  feelings  of  the  members  of  the  House  on  the  subject,  they 
were  wise  in  yielding  to  the  Senate  and  securing  the  forfeiture 
of  those  lands  concerning  which  no  doubt  existed.  But  if  the 
proposition  for  a  judicial  determination  of  the  matter  could  have 
been  adopted,  a  much  more  satisfactory  solution  would  have  been 
reached.  The  extent  to  which  the  forfeiture  ought  to  work 
would  have  been  in  the  hands  of  the  supreme  court  and  the  rights 
of  the  government  and  the  railroads  given  an  authoritative  deter- 
mination. 

The  House,  having  secured  something  from  the  Senate,  at- 
tempted to  go  further  and  during  the  next  Congress  passed  a 
bill  forfeiting  lands  along  all  portions  of  roads  not  completed  in 
time.  This  bill  was  passed,  under  suspension  of  the  rules,  by  a 
two-thirds  vote,36  but  was  not  considered  in  the  Senate.    At  the 

29  House  Reports,  1st  sess.  51st  Cong.,  No.  2215. 

30  Record,  1st  sess.  51st  Cong.,  7013,  7387. 

31  Ibid.,  7012. 
82  Ibid.,  App.,  581. 
*3  Ibid.,  7382. 

34  Ibid.,  7388. 

35  Statutes  at  Large,  XXVI,  496. 
38 Record,  1st  sess.  52nd  Cong.,  5121. 

(336) 


SANBORN — RAILROAD    LAND    GRANTS.  75 

next  Congress  a  similar  bill  was  passed  by  the  House.37  The  Sen- 
ate committee  reported  it  adversely,  declaring  that  Congress  had 
no  right  to  make  such  a  forfeiture.38  Here  the  matter  may  be 
said  to  have  ended. 

Probably  the  only  statement  of  the  change  in  the  attitude  of 
Congress  on  land  grants  which  can  be  made  is  that  it  was  due  to 
the  opinion  that  land  grants  had  had  their  place  and  that  the 
time  when  such  aid  to  western  railroads  was  necessary  had 
passed.  Under  the  changed  conditions  of  the  country  it  was  felt 
that  the  government  should  demand  back  the  lands  previously 
granted  from  the  companies  which  had  failed  to  take  advantage 
of  the  opportunity  offered  them.  Probably  considerable  feeling 
against  the  railroads  existed  in  the  far  west  but  I  have  obtained 
no  definite  evidence  of  this. 

The  Democrats  wished  to  go  much  further  than  the  Republi- 
cans in  the  matter  of  forfeiture  and  emphasized  this  fact,  and  the 
large  grants  to  the  Pacific  railroads  made  under  Republican  ad- 
ministrations, in  their  campaign  text  books.  But  at  no  time  was 
the  issue  of  importance  in  a  national  election. 

"Record,  2d  sess.  53d  Cong.,  7355. 
w  Record,  3d  sess.  53d  Cong.,  386. 


(337) 


76  BULLETIN  OF  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  WISCONSIN. 


CHAPTER  VH. 

THE   DISPOSAL   OF   THE   GRANTS. 

The  history  of  a  land  grant  requires  more  than  an  account  of 
the  passage  of  the  bill  making  the  grant.  It  involves  also  the  pro- 
cess by  which  the  lands  passed  into  the  possession  of  the  states 
and  the  companies  and  were  by  them  disposed  of  to  the  settlers. 
The  question  is  thus  an  administrative  one,  and  the  machinery  of 
the  general  land  office  for  the  adjustment  of  railroad  grants  must 
first  be  examined.  Some  attempt  will  then  be  made  to  show  in 
a  general  way  the  process  by  which  the  state  grants  were  be- 
stowed upon  the  companies,  what  restrictions  were  placed  on 
these  companies,  how  they  fulfilled  the  conditions  of  the  grants 
and  how  they  disposed  of  their  lands. 

The  grant  to  Illinois  of  September  20,  1850,  was  taken  as  a 
model  for  nearly  all  the  other  grants  to  states.  This  gave  the 
right  of  way  through  the  public  lands  for  100  feet  on  each  side 
of  the  road  with  the  right  to  take  necessary  materials  from  the 
lands.  In  addition  every  alternate  even-numbered  section  for 
six  miles  on  each  side  of  the  road  was  granted  the  state.  If  any 
of  the  lands  so  granted  had  been  disposed  of,  the  deficiency  should 
be  made  good  from  the  next  adjacent  public  lands  not  more  than 
fifteen  miles  from  the  road.  The  line  was  to  be  commenced  at  its 
termini  simultaneously  and  the  lands  were  to  become  available 
as  the  road  progressed.  The  lands  remaining  to  the  United 
states  within  six  miles  of  the  road  were  not  to  be  sold  for  less  than 
the  double  minimum  ($2.50).  The  line  was  to  remain  a  public 
highway  for  the  use  of  the  government,  and  mail  was  to  be  trans- 
ported for  such  price  as  Congress  might  direct.  If  the  road  was 
not  completed  within  ten  years  the  lands  should  revert  to  the  gov- 

(338) 


SANBORN — RAILROAD  LAND  GRANTS.  77 

eminent,  and  the  state  should  pay  the  United  States  the  amount 
received  from  the  land  already  sold.1  The  same  general  features 
were  retained  in  the  grants  to  the  other  states.  During  the  later 
period  the  grants  were  increased  from  six  to  ten  miles  and  the  in- 
demnity limits  from  fifteen  to  twenty.  The  grants  to  the  Pacific 
roads  were  also  made  on  the  same  general  basis,  but  directly  to 
corporations.  More  stringent  exceptions  concerning  the  lands  to 
which  the  grants  applied,  were  also  made,  so  that  the  lands 
within  the  ten  mile  limits  were  somewhat  reduced. 

After  a  grant  had  been  made,  a  procedure  was  adopted  which 
was  probably  the  only  just  one  to  the  railroads,  under  the  circum- 
stances, but  which  proved  in  the  end  to  be  probably  the  worst 
feature  of  the  system.  After  a  map  showing  the  definite  location 
of  the  road  had  been  filed  in  the  land  office,  the  lands  falling 
within  the  limits  of  the  grant  were  withdrawn  from  sale  or  entry 
until  the  grant  should  be  adjusted.  The  titles  to  the  lands  within 
the  six  mile  limits  were  first  ascertained,  and  when  these  had  been 
adjusted  the  road  made  its  indemnity  selections,  and  the  remain- 
ing lands  were  restored  to  market.2  Thus  it  was  necessary  to 
withhold  the  lands  within  the  indemnity  limits  until  a  complete 
adjustment  had  been  made.  If  the  adjustment  had  been  prompt 
the  plan  would  not  have  worked  a  hardship,  but,  as  it  was,  the  in- 
demnity lands  of  nearly  all  the  roads  were  kept  out  of  the  market 
for  over  thirty  years. 

The  effect  of  this  delay  in  the  adjustment  of  the  grants  and  the 
restoration  of  the  remaining  lands  to  market  was  a  most  unjust 
one  on  the  settler.  He  was  in  theory  prohibited  from  going  on  a 
strip  of  land  thirty  or  forty  miles  wide  and  the  length  of  the  road 
to  which  the  grant  had  been  made.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  many 
did  go  on  these  lands,  expecting  to  secure  a  perfect  title  later,  and 
then  the  railroads  would  select  these  lands  as  due  them  for  in- 
demnity. There  was,  of  course,  a  temptation  for  the  railroads  to 
make  a  selection  of  such  lands  inasmuch  as  the  squatters  would 

1  Statutes  at  Large,  IX,  4GG. 

1  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  Report,  1S57  ;  Sen.  Docs.    1st  sess. 
35th  Cong.,  II,  88-89. 

(339) 


) 


78  BULLETIN  OP  THE   UNIVERSITY  OF   WISCONSIN. 

be  forced  to  come  to  some  agreement  with  the  companies.  The 
case  of  Guilford  Miller  attracted  some  considerable  attention  in 
connection  with  this  feature  of  the  land  grant  system.  He  had 
settled  on  lands  afterwards  claimed  by  the  Northern  Pacific  as 
indemnity  lands.  The  case  came  before  the  Attorney  General, 
who  decided  that  the  withdrawal  of  the  lands  was  legal  and  that 
Miller  could  acquire  no  title.  President  Cleveland  thereupon 
took  an  interest  in  the  case  and  directed  the  Interior  Department 
to  make  the  railroad  selections  in  such  manner  as  to  protect  the 
rights  of  settlers  wherever  possible.3 

Soon  after  this  case  was  decided,  an  effort  was  made  to  secure 
a  final  adjustment  of  the  grants.  In  1887  Congress  passed  a  law 
directing  the  Interior  Department  to  adjust  the  grants,  and  Sec- 
retary Lamar  ordered  the  railroads  to  show  cause  why  the  with- 
drawals of  their  indemnity  lands  should  not  be  revoked.  In  the 
case  of  most  of  the  roads  it  was  found  that  either  they  had  se- 
lected all  the  lands  to  which  they  were  entitled,  or  had  selected 
all  liable  to  such  selection  within  the  indemnity  limits.  The  pur- 
pose of  the  withdrawal  had  therefore  been  served  and  the  lands 
should  have  before  been  restored  to  entry.4  In  a  number  of  cases 
the  department  had  not  been  informed  to  what  extent  the  roads 
were  entitled  to  lands  within  the  indemnity  limits.  These  roads 
were  chiefly  in  the  southwest  and  west,  including  the  Northern 
Pacific  west  of  Dakota  and  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  west  of  Mis- 
souri.5 

The  answer  of  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  to  this  order,  and  the 
decision  of  the  secretary  in  regard  to  the  land  of  this  road  (the 
decision  was  applied,  mutatis  mutandis,  to  the  other  roads), 
showed  that  the  companies  were  not  in  many  cases  responsible  for 
the  delay  in  the  selection ;  surveys  of  the  public  lands  in  the  west- 
ern states  have  been  slow,  and  until  thev  had  been  made  in  the 
land  through  which  the  railroad  passed,  it  was  impossible  to  tell 
to  what  land  the  company  was  entitled.     Secretary  Lamar,  how- 

8  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  Report,  1887,  9-10. 

*Decisiona  of  the  Dept.  of  the  Interior  relating  to  the  Public  Lands,  VI,  80-S1. 

s  Ibid.,  82-83. 

(340) 


SANBORN — RAILROAD  LAND  GRANTS. 


79 


ever,  held  that  the  original  withdrawal  had  not  been  contem- 
plated by  Congress  but  had  been  on  executive  authority  only. 
He  thought  that  the  time  had  come  when  the  best  interests  of  all 
concerned  required  that  the  withdrawal  for  the  benefit  of  the 
company  should  cease,  claiming  that  the  matter  of  survey  was  in 
the  discretion  of  Congress.  He  therefore  directed  that  all  lands 
withdrawn  for  indemnity  purposes  be  restored  to  he  public  do- 
main, except  in  the  case  of  a  few  companies  when  the  withdrawal 
had  been  expressly  authorized  by  Congress.6  The  amount  of 
land  restored  by  this  order  was  21,323,600  acres.7 

Many  questions  have  arisen  regarding  the  interpretation  of  the 
various  land  grant  laws,  the  conflicts  over  lands  claimed  under 
them,  and  also  their  relation  to  the  pre-emption,  homestead, 
and  other  laws  relating  to  the  disposal  of  the  public  domain.  The 
decisions  of  the  courts  on  this  subject  are  very  numerous  and  a 
complete  examination  of  them  belongs  to  the  legal  field.8  Some 
of  the  more  general  principles  may,  however,  be  noted  here. 

While  the  relation  between  the  government  and  the  states  or 
corporations  receiving  the  land  grants  is  a  contractual  one,  yet  as 
the  contracts  are  a  part  of  public  rather  than  private  law,  the  in- 
tent of  Congress  will  govern  in  regulating  their  construction.9 
In  order  that  this  intent  may  be  correctly  ascertained  the  condi- 
tion of  the  country  at  the  time  the  grants  were  made  as  well  as 
the  language  of  the  law  will  be  taken  into  consideration,10  but  in 
general  the  grants  will  be  strictly  construed  against  the  grantee.11 

The  question  of  the  exact  time  that  the  companies  acquired 
title  to  lands  was  of  great  importance  in  relation  to  entries  which 
might  be  made  along  the  line  under  pre-emption  and  homestead 
laws.  While,  as  has  been  noted,  it  was  the  practice  to  suspend 
the  right  to   enter  lands   along  the   probable  route  of  the   road 

i 

8  Ibid.,  85-93. 

'Secretary  of  the  Interior,  Report,  1887,  12. 

8  See  Elliott,  Treatise  on  the  Lan-  of  Railroads,  ch.  S3;  Rapalje  and  Mack,  Dt- 
■gest  of  Railway  Decisions,  under  "Land  Grants." 

•Mo.,  K.  &  T.    ;.'.  Co.  v.  Kas.    Par.  R.  Co.,  97  U.   S.,  401. 

^Winona  d  St.  1'.  R.  Co.  v.  Barm-,),  113  U.  S.,  G18. 

^Dubuque  &  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Litchfield,  -.1  Howard.  66;  o~  Am.  aud  Eng.  Railroad 
•Cases,  338. 

(311) 


80  BULLETIN  OF  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  WISCONSIN. 

until  the  definite  location  was  made,  yet  no  title  passed  until  the 
road  was  so  located.12  But  in  case  conflicting  grants  for  two  com- 
panies were  made,  the  priority  of  the  grant,  rather  than  priority 
of  location,  gave  the  title  to  the  lands.13  When  grants  of  the 
same  date  conflicted,  priority  of  location  or  construction  gave  no. 
right  to  the  lands  within  the  conflicting  primary  limits  of  both 
roads,  as  these  were  divided,  but  in  case  of  the  conflicting  indem- 
nity limits  priority  of  selection  gave  the  title.14  Lands  which  had 
been  entered  under  other  laws  were  excepted  from  the  grant,, 
but  such  entries  had  to  be  made  before  the  company  located  its- 
road.  Where  lands  within  the  grant  had  been  previously  en- 
tered under  the  homestead  law  and  the  conditions  of  that  law 
were  not  complied  with,  the  company  did  not  obtain  these  lands- 
but  on  their  reversion  to  the  public  domain  priority  of  selection 
gpye  title  to  the  lands.15 

By  far  the  most  important  judicial  decision  concerning  land 
grants  was  that  of  Schuleriberg  v.  Harriman,  rendered  in  1876. 
In  this  case  the  court  held  that  the  words  of  the  grant  "there  be, 
and  is  hereby  granted,"  etc.,  signified  an  immediate  transfer  of 
title,  although  subsequent  proceedings  were  required  to  give  pre- 
cision to  that  title  and  attach  it  to  specific  tracts  of  land.  The 
grants  were  therefore  made  on  condition  subsequent  and  the  pro- 
vision that  lands  should  revert  to  the  United  States  in  case  the 
road  was  not  completed  within  ten  years,  was  only  a  provision 
that  the  grant  would  be  void  if  a  condition  subsequent  was  not 
performed.  In  regard  to  the  enforcement  of  this  right  the  court 
say:  "It  is  a  settled  law  that  no  one  can  take  advantage  of  the 
non-performance  of  a  condition  subsequent  annexed  to  an  estate 
in  fee,  but  the  grantor  or  his  heirs,  or  the  successor  of  the  grantor, 
if  the  grant  proceeds  from  an  artificial  person;  and  if  they  do- 
not  see  fit  to  assert  their  right  to  enforce  a  forfeiture  on  that 
ground,  the  title  remains  unimpaired  in  the  grantee."10 

12  Hannibal  d  St.  Jo.  R.  Co.  v.  Smith,  9  Wallace,  95;  14  Am.  &  Eng.  Railroad 
Cases,  503. 

13  St.  P.  &  S.  C.  R.  Co.  v.  W.  cf  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  112  U.  S.,  720. 

14  46  Am  and  Eng.  Railroad  Cases,  430. 
16  Ibid. 

"21  Wallace,  44. 

(342) 


SANBOKN — RAILROAD    LAND    GRANTS.  81 

The  effect  of  this  decision  was  to  make  it  necessary  for  Con- 
gress to  take  action,  either  in  the  form  of  a  repeal  of  the  grant  or 
an  authorization  of  the  Attorney  General  to  bring  suit  for  a  for- 
feiture of  the  lands.  Until  some  action  was  taken,  the  companies 
could  go  on  and  complete  their  roads,  receiving  from  the  govern- 
ment the  patents  for  the  lands  as  fast  as  they  earned  them.  Nor 
was  it  probable  that  the  supreme  court  would  have  sustained 
laws  forfeiting  the  lands  thus  earned  after  the  expiration  of  the 
time  for  the  building  of  the  road.  A  decision  which  has  already 
been  noted,17  implies  that  the  contract  between  the  government 
and  the  companies  was  complete  when  the  road  was  built  and  the 
lands  patented,  so  that  it  would  be  impossible  for  the  government 
to  recede)  from  its  side  of  the  contract  at  a  later  date. 

One  of  the  ideas  in  making  the  grants  to  states  rather  than  to 
corporations  was  that  the  state  would  be  able  to  exercise  control 
over  the  grants,  thus  placing  a  check  on  the  evil  effects  of  cor- 
porations. But  there  is  nothing  to  show  that  the  states  did  any 
better  in  this  than  Congress  would  have  done  if  the  companies 
had  received  the  grants  direct,  or  than  Congress  did  do  when  the 
grants  were  made  to  the  Pacific  roads.  The  contest  in  the  Wis- 
consin legislature  over  the  disposal  of  the  land  grant  was,  propor- 
tionately, more  discreditable  than  the  Credit  Mobilier.  Boards 
were  in  some  states  created  to  supervise  the  roads  and  the  grant- 
ing of  lands  to  them,  but  these  do  not  seem  to  have  contributed 
to  the  improvement  of  the  system.  Another  step  which  some  of 
the  states  took  was  the  requirement  that  a  certain  percentage  of 
the  earnings  of  the  road  be  paid  into  the  treasury  as  a  condition 
of  the  grant.  But  as  this  was  in  lieu  of  other  taxes  the  gain  was 
questionable,  especially  as  the  earnings  of  the  roads  have  become 
the  usual  basis  of  taxation.  So  the  interposition  of  the  states  be- 
tween the  government  and  the  roads  cannot  be  regarded  as  hav- 
ing placed  any  additional  safeguards  around  the  grants.18 

"Van  Wyck  v.  Kncvals,  106  U.  S.,  30G.      Supra,  p.  73. 

18  In  Appendix  A  an  attempt  has  been  made  to  trace  the  history  of  the  grants 
after  they  passed  into  the  hands  of  the  states  and  corporations.  All  such  ques- 
tions will  be  considered  at  greater  length  there. 

(343) 


82  BULLETIN  OP  TUE  UNIVERSITY  OF  WISCONSIN. 

As  far  as  the  roads  themselves  were  concerned  the  system  was 
in  many  cases  not  carried  out  in  the  manner  intended  by  Con- 
gress. A  quick  construction  of  the  roads  had  been  expected, 
since  the  purpose  of  the  grants  was  to  enhance  the  value  of  the 
other  public  lands.  A  long  delay  in  the  building  of  the  road 
might  entirely  change  the  situation  and  remove  the  necessity  for 
that  particular  road.  But  that  Congress  failed  to  act,  after  the 
need  of  such  action  to  prevent  the  further  earning  of  the  grant 
had  been  pointed  out,  was  not  the  fault  of  the  roads,  and  the  fail- 
ure so  to  act  was,  in  effect,  a  re-grant  from  year  to  year. 

It  is  impossible  to  give  an  exact  estimate  of  the  amount  of 
railroad  mileage  completed  on  time.  In  many  cases  the  time  for 
the  building  of  the  road  was  extended  greatly  over  the  original 
grant.  In  1890  the  House  committee  on  Public  Lands  reported 
that  of  railroads  aggregating  7,445  miles  in  length  there  had  been 
built  on  time  2,847  miles  and  after  the  time  required  3,541 
miles,  leaving  in  1890,  1,056  miles  unbuilt,19  This  did  not  in- 
clude the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  and  various  smaller  roads,  the 
grants  to  which  had  been  repealed  previously.  ISTor,  on  the  other 
hand,  did  it  include  those  roads  which  had  been  entirelv  built 
on  time.  The  best  estimate  I  can  make  is,  that  about  one-half  of 
the  railroad  mileage  to  which  the  grants  applied  was  built  within 
the  time  required  by  the  acts. 

Donaldson20  estimated  that  the  total  amount  of  land  granted 
under  various  acts  was  155,504,994  acres.  Previous  claims  and 
forfeitures  have  taken  up  a  large  part  of  this,  so  that  in  1897 
there  had  been  patented  on  behalf  of  these  grants  87,915,326 
acres,  and  it  was  estimated  that  11,436,809  acres  were  necessary 
to  complete  them.21  Figures  relating  to  the  disposal  of  those 
lands  by  the  companies  are  very  incomplete.  In  general,  the 
roads  seem  to  have  made  no  effort  to  build  up  a  land  monopoly, 
but  to  have  disposed  of  their  lands  to  settlers  as  rapidly  as  pos- 
sible, and  at  reasonable  prices.     The  attempt  to  bring  settlers  to 

19  House  Reports,  1st  sess.  51st  Cong.,  No.  1179. 
50  Public  Domain,  p.   273. 

21  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  Report,  1S97,  234,  224. 

(314) 


SANBORN — RAILROAD    LAND    GRANTS.  83 

these  lands  is  a  part  of  the  general  effort  which  the  railroads  have 
made,  by  advertisements,  immigration  agents,  home-seekers  ex- 
cursions, etc.,  to  increase  the  population  along  their  lines. 

In  1880  a  report  from  the  Auditor  of  Railroad  Accounts  con- 
cerning most  of  the  roads  to  which  lands  have  been  givnted 
showed  that  of  32,131,731  acres  then  patented  to  the  roads, 
14,310,201  acres  had  been  sold.22  The  time  since  the  grants  had 
been  made  was  from  twenty-eight  to  fourteen  years.  Consider- 
ing the  newness  of  the  country,  the  sales  seem  to  have  been  as 
rapid  as  could  be  expected.  ~No  evidence  has  been  found  of  a  dis- 
position to  retain  the  lands  until  high  prices  could  be  obtained  for 
them.  Every  effort  seems  to  have  been  to  attract  settlers  and  to 
sell  the  lands  as  soon  as  possible.  The  total  amount  received 
for  the  lands  included  in  the  above  report  was  $68,905,479.  The 
highest  average  price  per  acre  was  in  the  case  of  the  Chicago, 
Burlington,  and  Quincy  which  had  received  $12.12.  The  lowest 
price  was  that  of  the  lands  of  the  Oregon  and  California,  $2.14 
an  acre.  After  1880,  higher  prices  were  sometimes  obtained, 
but  the  average  price  to  date  has  been  under  rather  than  over 
$10  an  acre. 

Few  of  the  roads  still  hold  large  tracts  of  valuable  lands,  and 
the  lands  have  not  been  the  source  of  wealth  to  the  roads  that 
is  commonly  supposed.  Even  in  the  case  of  the  largest  grants 
the  balance  for  the  whole  period  is  quite  small  and  in  many  cases 
the  land  departments  are  now  a  source  of  expense  rather  than 
of  revenue.  The  question,  like  all  features  of  railway  finance, 
is  a  complicated  one.  The  lands  may  not  have  been  well  man- 
aged, sales  may  have  been  made  to  those  interested  in  the  road, 
or  profits  may  have  been  concealed  in  an  expense  account.  Any 
definite  conclusion  on  this  subject  would  require  a  complete  ex- 
amination of  the  finances  of  the  companies,  an  examination  im- 
practicable in  this  connection  and  probably  impossible  in  any 
case. 

Comparing  the    building  of  the   roads  which   received   land 


**  Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  779. 

(345) 


84  BULLETIN  OF  THE   UNIVERSITY  OP  WI8CONSIN. 

grants  with  those  that  did  not,  it  seems  that  there  was  no  partic- 
ular need  for  most  of  the  grants.  Unaided  roads  were  built  along 
similar  routes  even  faster  than  aided  ones.  The  great  transcon- 
tinental roads,  however,  probably  needed  the  assistance  of  aid  in 
the  sHape  of  land  or  bonds  to  secure  their  construction  at  the 
time  they  were  built. 


(346) 


SANBORN — RAILROAD    LAND    GRANTS.  85 


\ 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

CONCLUSION. 

The  development  of  the  Mississippi  valley  in  the  period  pre- 
ceding 1850  has  already  been  considered.  It  was  the  fact  of 
this  development,  together  with  the  existence  of  large  tracts  of 
public  lands  in  this  new  country  and  the  peculiar  political  con- 
ditions of  the  time,  which  led  to  the  system  of  railroad  land 
grants.  As  we  have  seen,  it  was  useless  to  expect  direct  aid 
from  the  states  or  federal  government.  The  attempts  of  the 
states  to  carry  on  works  of  internal  improvement  directly  had 
been  so  disastrous  that  aid  to  private  enterprises  of  that  kind  was 
virtually  prohibited.  On  the  other  hand  the  prevalent  political 
theory  was  that  it  was  not  within  the  province  of  the  national 
government  to  extend  such  aid.  With  both  of  these  sources  of 
assistance  cut  off,  the  idea  of  indirect  aid  by  means  of  the  public 
lands  was  evolved. 

It  was  not  proposed  that  there  should  be  a  direct  gift  of  the 
lands.  That  the  public  lands  were  to  be  held  for  profit  was 
another  doctrine  of  the  time.  If  the  proposition  could  be  so  pre- 
sented that  both  the  government  and  the  railways  would  derive 
a  direct  financial  gain,  it  would  be  taken  out  of  the  category  of 
internal  improvements — the  spectre  of  every  Democratic  politi- 
cian since  Jackson's  administration — and  would  become  simply 
an  advantageous  means  of  raising  revenue.  By  the  use  of  the 
states  as  an  intermediary,  moreover,  the  respect  for  the  state 
autonomy  was  preserved. 

Having  in  mind  the  conditions  of  the  time  when  the  land 
grants  were  first  discussed  in  Congress,  we  may  review  the  his- 
tory of  the  grants  and  the  principles  on  which  they  were  made. 

(347) 


86  BULLETIN  OF  THE  UNIVERSITY  OP  WISCONSIN. 

We  may  distinguish  four  periods  in  the  history  of  land  grant 
legislation : 

1.  The  first  of  these  extended  from  about  1837  to  1850.    This 

was  the  formative  period,  when  the  theories  on  which 
the  grants  were  made,  and  the  grounds  of  opposition  to 
them,  were  becoming  evident. 

2.  The  second  period  extended  from  1850  to  1857,  and  may 

be  called  the  period  of  grants  to  states,  together  with  the 
beginnings  of  the  homestead  law.  During  this  period 
the  movement  for  the  Pacific  railroad  was  also  taking- 
shape;  it  occupies  much  the  same  relation  to  that  move- 
ment which  the  earlier  period  occupies  toward  the  state 
grants. 

3.  In  the  third  period  from  1857  to  1872,  the  Pacific  roads 

had  their  turn,  and  the  grant  to  a  corporation  was  the 
distinctive  form  of  the  time.  Extensions  were  also  made 
of  earlier  grants  to  states  and  a  few  new  grants  to  the 
states  were  made. 

4.  The  reaction  set  in,  and  from  1876  to  1890  efforts  were 

made  to  secure  the  forfeiture  of  the  unearned  grants. 

During  the  first  period,  the  main  argument  for  the  land  grants 
was  that  which  represented  the  government  as  a  private  land 
owner  wishing  to  secure  the  largest  returns  from  his  domains. 
Much  of  the  government  land  was  far  from  the  settled  portions 
of  the  country  and  would  not  sell  unless  the  country  was  devel- 
oped. If  a  portion  of  this  land  was  donated  to  a  railroad  which 
would  make  the  remaining  land  salable,  was  not  the  government 
acting  as  any  wise  individual  would  ?  To  give  greater  force  to 
this  idea,  it  was  proposed  that  the  grant  should  be  in  alternate 
sections,  with  the  price  of  the  remaining  lands  doubled,  so  that 
the  gain  would  be  direct  and  in  exact  proportion  to  the  amount 
granted.  Extended  to  its  logical  conclusion,  the  argument 
amounted  to  this:  lands  can  only  be  granted  in  an  unsettled 
country,  for  if  the  country  was  settled  the  government  would  not 
need  to  create  a  market  for  its  lands.    That  this  was  a  good  thing 

(348) 


SANBORN — RAILROAD    LAND    GRANTS.  87 

to  build  railroads  beyond  the  outposts  of  civilization,  was  one  of 
the  popular  ideas  of  the  time.1  The  framers  of  the  above  argu- 
ment held  that  the  lands  should  be  used  for  the  direct  benefit  of 
the  treasury. 

There  were  also  those  who  considered  that  the  better  plan  was 
to  distribute  the  proceeds  of  the  lands,  or  even  the  lands  them- 
selves, among  the  states.  The  distribution  of  the  proceeds  had 
been  a  "Whig  doctrine  at  the  time  of  that  party's  greatest  power. 
But  there  was  now  hardly  enough  money  from  the  sale  of  lands 
to  pay  to  distribute,  so  it  was  proposed  to  distribute  the  lands 
themselves.  This  was  the  idea  of  the  bill  which  passed  the 
House  in  1852,  which,  as  we  have  seen,2  received  its  chief  sup- 
port from  the  Whigs.  The  fundamental  doctrine  of  this  bill  was 
the  same  as  that  of  the  regular  land  grants:  the  land  was  the  joint 
property  of  all  the  states,  but  the  profits  from  the  lands  were  to 
be  realized  in  a  different  manner. 

It  has  seemed  to  me  that  some  such  division  as  that  proposed 
by  Bennett,3  if  it  could  have  been  final,  would  have  solved  the 
problem  of  land  grants  better  than  was  done  by  the  separate 
grants.  The  selection  which  Congress  made  of  one  road  or 
another  to  receive  the  aid  from  the  lands  was  not  on  any  prin- 
ciple of  national  or  state  interest,  but  on  political  or  personal 
grounds.  The  other  plan  would  have  placed  the  matter  in  the 
hands  of  the  states  who  would  probably  have  dealt  as  wisely  with 
the  matter  as  Congress  did.  At  any  rate  as  between  the  states 
some  proportion  would  have  been  observed  in  the  distribution  of 
the  grants. 

Still  another  class  of  persons  considered  the  new  states  entitled 
to  the  lands  within  their  boundaries.  At  least  it  was  urged  that 
the  state  should  be  allowed  to  exercise  a  high  attribute  of  sov- 

1  Von  Hoist  says,  speaking  of  the  crisis  of  1857 :  "Railroads  had  not  only  to 
precede  artificial  roads,  but  to  wide  circles  of  people  It  did  not,  by  any  means, 
seem  an  absurd  idea  to  build  them  into  the  wilderness."  Constitutional  History  of 
the  United  States,  VI,  105.  It  may  be  noted,  however,  that  Professor  von  Hoist 
entirely  neglects  land  grants  and  their  effect  on  the  period  which  he  covers  In  his 
work. 

2Supra,  p.  42. 

3Supra,  pp.  41-42. 

7  (349) 


88  BULLETIN  OF  THE   UNIVERSITY  OF  WISCONSIN. 

ereignty  over  these  lands,  the  right  of  taxation.  As  such  a  right 
was  not  enjoyed  by  any  of  the  states  over  the  public  lands  within 
their  limits,  it  was  argued  that  the  donation  of  a  certain  amount 
of  land  in  lieu  of  the  money  which  might  otherwise  have  been 
secured,  was  only  just  and  equitable. 

During  the  first  period  those  opposed  to  land  grants  held  that 
the  exercise  of  such  a  power  was  unconstitutional.  This  idea  was 
connected  with  the  opposition  to  internal  improvements,  for 
there  were  some  who  saw  that  the  difference  between  grants  of 
alternate  sections  of  land  and  grants  of  money  was  not  so  great 
as  many  professed  to  believe.  No  particular  constitutional  pro- 
vision was  cited  in  behalf  of  their  position,  but  the  general  un- 
constitutionality of  national  support  for  internal  improvements 
was  relied  upon  in  support  of  their  case.  And  if  federal  internal 
improvements  were  unconstitutional,  then  land  grants  should 
probably  be  considered  so.  On  the  other  hand,  the  provision  of 
the  Constitution  that  '"Congress  shall  have  power  to  dispose  of, 
and  make  all  needful  rules  and  regulations  respecting  the  terri- 
tory or  other  property  belonging  to  the  United  States,"4  was 
cited  as  clearly  giving  the  power  to  grant  lands. 

Such  were  the  arguments  pro  and  con  during  the  first  period 
of  land  grants.  The  second  period  may  be  called  that  of  the 
homestead  law.  At  this  time  the  chief  objection  to  the  grants 
was  made  on  behalf  of  the  settlers :  that  the  grants  would  raise 
the  price  of  the  best  lands  in  the  new  states,  not  only  the  lands 
granted  to  the  railroads  which  it  was  supposed  would  be  sold  at 
high  prices,  but  also  the  lands  reserved  to  the  government,  which 
were  held  at  double  the  regular  price.  As  it  would,  to  a  large  ex- 
tent, have  destroyed  the  principle  on  which  the  grants  were  made 
to  have  left  the  price  of  the  reserved  lands  at  $1.25  an  acre,  ob- 
jections to  the  grants  on  that  score  were  unavailing.  The  some- 
what narrow  ideas  of  the  time  on  the  question  of  transportation 
caused  the  belief  that  the  fifteen  mile  limits  of  the  grant  formed 
the  limits  of  the  influence  of  the  road  so  that  the  benefit  to  gov- 


4Art.  IV,  sec.  3,  paragraph  2. 

(350) 


SANBORN — RAILROAD  LAND  GRANTS.  89 

ernment  lands  beyond  those  limits  was  considered  as  nil.  It  was 
believed  that  the  only  way  to  reimburse  the  government  was  to 
raise  the  price  of  the  reserved  lands,  and  the  settler  must  pay  the 
difference  if  he  wished  to  be  near  a  road. 

The  objection  to  the  increase  in  price  of  the  lands  was  part  of 
a  general  feeling  that  the  best  way  to  dispose  of  the  public  lands 
was  to  grant  them  to  actual  settlers  in  consideration  for  improve- 
ments and  cultivation.  Beginning  with  a  reduction  in  price  to 
actual  settlers  the  theory  was  soon  enlarged  to  an  actual  donation. 
Many  believed  that  the  work  of  the  settler  on  his  land  would  be 
a  full  equivalent  to  the  government  for  the  price  at  which  it  was 
held.  But  a  much  broader  view  was  that  which  considered  the 
best  basis  of  the  nation  its  agricultural  population,  and  that  the 
best  use  which,  could  be  made  of  the  public  lands  was  to  encour- 
age the  development  of  a  rural  class.  The  correctness  of  this 
view  has,  I  think,  been  attested  by  the  working  of  the  law,  and 
by  the  fact  that  the  good  results  have  never  been  seriously  ques- 
tioned. 

That  the  homestead  law  was  a  party  question  is  clearly  shown 
by  the  analysis  of  the  votes  given  in  the  previous  pages.  It  was 
first  brought  forward  prominently  by  the  Free-Soil  party  and 
passed  with  the  other  doctrines  of  that  party  to  the  Republican 
party  on  its  organization.  The  Democrats  largely  opposed  the 
measure  because  of  their  ideas  on  the  construction  of  the  Consti- 
tution, as  they  did  not  believe  that  it  was  one  of  the  functions  of 
government  to  assist  the  needy  or  landless  by  donations  of  the 
public  lands. 

The  economic  principle  of  laissez  faire,  which  had  been  since 
the  time  of  Adam  Smith  the  dominant  doctrine  in  economics 
and  political  science,  was  frequently  invoked  by  the  Democrats 
both  on  the  tariff  and  homestead  questions.  It  was  said :  You  pro- 
posed the  tariff  because  there  was  too  much  agriculture  and  too 
little  manufacturing  in  the  United  States,  and  now  you  propose 
the  homestead  law  because  there  are  too  many  people  engaged 
in  manufacturing  in  the  cities  and  too  few  in  agriculture  on  the 

western  lands — you  should  have  left  matters  alone  at  first.     But 

(351) 


90  BULLETIN  OP  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF   WISCONSIN. 

the  thing  which  most  of  all  made  the  homestead  law  a  political 
question  was  its  connection  with  slavery.  For  it  was  very  true 
that  the  North  alone  would  receive  the  benefit  of  the  law.  The 
struggle  for  Kansas  had  shown  that  the  South  did  not  have  the 
men  to  settle  even  one  territory,5  and  if  the  additional  induce- 
ment of  free  land  was  added,  the  struggle  would  have  been  even 
more  hopeless.  In  the  intensity  of  the  struggle  over  slavery  just 
preceding  the  war,  the  least  weight  which  would  influence  the 
balance  was  fought  with  intense  energy  by  the  slaveholders.  A 
measure  of  such  importance  to  the  North  as  the  homestead  law 
stood  no  chance  of  receiving  the  votes  of  the  South. 

The  opposition  between  homesteads  and  land  grants  has  al- 
ready been  indicated.  How  far  this  extended  is  not  clear.  Only 
at  one  time,  during  the  thirty-second  Congress,  did  the  two  meas- 
ures appear  before  the  national  legislature  at  the  same  time.  At 
that  time  we  noted  an  equal  three-fold  division  of  the  members 
of  Congress,  those  favoring  both  systems,  those  opposed  to  both 
plans,  and  those  in  favor  of  one  and  opposed  to  the  other.  Some 
members  argued  that  the  systems  conflicted  and  others  that  they 
did  not.  The  nearest  approach  to  a  solution  seems  to  be  that 
there  was  opposition  between  the  plans,  but  that  this  opposition 
was  not  entire  and  did  not  extend  to  all  features  of  the  questions 
or  to  all  members  of  Congress. 

The  third  period,  that  of  the  Pacific  grants,  has  not  the  interest 
which  the  previous  ones  had,  although  the  grants  to  the  Pacific 
roads  form  a  quite  distinct  part  of  the  land  grant  system.  The 
principle  on  which  they  were  made  was  frankly  that  of  aid  to  a 
certain  work  of  internal  improvements,  but  it  was  justified 
by  the  extent  and  national  importance  of  the  undertaking  and 
by  the  constitutional  power  of  the  government  to  establish  post- 
offices  and  post  roads  and  to  carry  on  war.    The  great  obstacle  to 

B  "The  lesson  of  the  vain  struggle  for  Kansas  showed  that  they  lacked  the 
human  material — slaves  as  well  as  freemen — successfully  to  stand  the  struggle  of 
competition  with  the  north  in  the  making  of  settlements.  A  homestead  law  would 
necessarily  accelerate  the  growth  of  the  preponderance  of  the  free  states  much 
more  than  a  railway  running  north  of  Mason  and  Dixon's  line  to  the  Pacific 
ocean."     Von  Hoist,  Constitutional  History  of  the  United  States,  VI,  302. 

(352) 


SANBORN RAILROAD    LAND    GRANTS.  91 

the  building  of  the  Pacific  road  was  not  constitutional  but  sec- 
tional. That  portion  of  the  territory  through  which  the  road 
was  built  was  expected  to  show  a  great  increase  in  wealth  and 
population.  Whether  the  territory  so  benefited  was  to  be  slave 
or  free  was  a  vital  point  in  the  opinion  of  every  person.  The 
first  Pacific  grant,  although  passed  after  secession,  was  on  the 
middle  rather  than  the  northern  route;  but  it  also  tended  to 
strengthen  the  power  of  the  North  as  it  ran  through  free  states. 

The  last  period  was  distinctly  anti-land  grant ;  the  failure  of 
many  of  the  companies  to  build  the  roads  within  the  time  re- 
quired by  the  granting  acts  and  the  various  abuses  which  had  en- 
tered into  the  system  soon  caused  a  demand  to  be  made  for  the 
forfeiture  of  a  number  of  grants.  At  first  this  was  confined  to 
individual  roads,  but  later  the  more  comprehensive  plan  of  for- 
feiting all  unearned  grants  was  presented.  This  forfeiture  could 
be  made  in  three  different  ways.  First,  the  entire  grant  could  be 
forfeited  where  the  provisions  of  the  granting  act  had  not  been 
fully  complied  with.  Second,  the  lands  opposite  the  parts  of 
the  road  which  had  not  been  built  on  time  could  be  forfeited. 
Third,  the  lands  opposite  the  part  uncompleted  at  the  time  of  the 
passage  of  the  forfeiture  act  could  be  restored  to  the  public  do- 
main. 

The  first  proposition  secured  the  favor  of  a  considerable  num- 
ber of  representatives,  but  failed  to  pass  the  House.  In  the  Sen- 
ate it  was  never  offered.  The  second  plan  was  that  demanded  by 
the  House,  at  first  by  the  passage  of  a  bill  to  that  effect,  and  then 
in  a  reluctant  assent  to  the  more  moderate  plan  of  the  Senate  fol- 
lowed by  another  bill  embodying  their  ideas  on  the  subject.  The 
last  plan  was  that  which  the  Senate  always  advocated  and  which 
was  expressed  in  the  legislation  of  1890. 

It  is  doubtful  whether  any  but  the  last  plan  would  have  been 
held  valid  by  the  supreme  court.  The  matter  never  came  di- 
rectly before  that  body  for  its  determination,  but  the  language 
used  in  land  grant  opinions  would  indicate  that  the  legality  of 
any  more  complete  forfeiture  was  doubtful.  This  seems  to  be  as 
true  in  equity  as  in  law.    The  time  for  Congressional  action  was 

(353) 


92  BULLETIN  OF  THE   UNIVERSITY  OF  WISCONSIN. 

when  the  grants  expired.  Then  the  lands  could  have  been  for- 
feited without  particular  hardship.  But  as  Congress  not  only 
neglected  but  refused  to  act  in  the  matter,  the  roads  could  assume, 
especially  in  view  of  the  decision  in  Schulenberg  v.  Ilarriinan, 
that  construction  gave  them  an  equitable  title  to  the  lands  thus 
earned.  Action  should  have  been  taken  much  earlier  in  regard 
to  many  of  the  roads,  but  having  failed  to  take  such  action  Con- 
gress could  not  undo  its  work  at  some  future  date  without  regard 
to  what  had  happened  in  the  meantime.  On  the  question  of  for- 
feiture, the  Democrats  took  a  much  more  advanced  position  than 
the  Republicans,  but  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  question  was 
ever  a  live  one  in  national  politics. 

The  land  policy  of  the  government  in  regard  to  its  arable  pub- 
lic lands  was  practically  settled  by  1863.  It  was  that  of  grants 
for  railroads,  education,  and  settlement.  After  the  war  the  cor- 
rectness of  this  policy  was  not  seriously  questioned,  and  the  pub- 
lic land  question  ceased  to  occupy  an  important  place  in  national 
politics.  There  was,  indeed,  considerable  discussion  over  the  for- 
feiture of  certain  railroad  grants,  but  this  question  occupied  a 
very  minor  position  in  the  politics  of  the  time  and  was  uncon- 
nected with  other  political  issues.  On  the  other  hand,  the  home- 
stead policy  was  considered  as  the  only  possible  manner  in  which 
the  lands  should  be  given  to  settlers.  The  lands  thus  ceased  to  be 
a  source  of  revenue  and  so  had  no  effect  on  finance  and  the  tariff, 
while  slavery  and  state  sovereignty  had  ceased  to  be  questions  of 
the  day.  The  problems  arising  in  connection  with  the  adjust- 
ment of  the  old  principles  of  land  legislation  to  the  conditions  of 
the  forest  areas  and  arid  tracts  of  the  west  of  to-day,  constitute 
a  new  chapter  in  the  agrarian  history  of  the  country.  Irrigation 
areas  now  attract  attention  in  place  of  railroad  routes.  But  dis- 
position of  the  public  domain  is  still  a  living  question. 


(354) 


SANBORN — RAILROAD    LAND    GRANTS.  93 


APPENDIX  A. 

THE  USE  OF  RAILROAD  LANDS  BY  STATES  AND  CORPORATIONS. 

The  following  summary  of  the  disposition  of  the  land  grants  to  rail- 
roads must  be  regarded  as  provisional.  The  material  is  too  scattered, 
insufficient,  and  sometimes  unreliable,  to  permit  exhaustive  treatment 
or  very  positive  detailed  conclusions.  But  the  following  data  have 
been  laboriously  collected  and,  although  incomplete,  are  presented 
partly  in  the  hope  of  stimulating  students  in  the  respective  states  to 
give  fuller  investigation  to  the  subject. 

ILLINOIS. 

The  act  of  September  20,  1850,  granted  lands  to  Illinois  for  a  road 
from  Chicago  to  Cairo,  with  a  branch  to  Dubuque  via  Galena.1  The 
western  part  of 'this  line  had  been  part  of  the  internal  improvement 
scheme  of  1837, 2  but  like  the  rest  of  the  plan  had  never  been  carried 
out. 

Even  before  the  internal  improvement  plan  had  been  adopted  a  com- 
pany had  been  chartered  to  build  the  road.  When  the  state  undertook 
the  work,  this  company  was  compelled  to  surrender  its  charter;  but  in 
1843  the  charter  was  returned,  onljr  to  be  repealed  in  1845  and  again 
revived  in  1849."  By  this  last  act  the  governor  was  to  hold  in  trust  for 
the  company  any  lands  which  might  be  granted  to  the  state  for  the 
benefit  of  the  road.4  There  seems  to  have  been  considerable  opposi- 
tion to  this  company  and  to  the  "Holbrook  charters,"  as  the  laws  re- 
lating to  it  were  called.  Douglas  was  particularly  persistent  in  his 
work  against  the  company  and  finally  secured  from  the  company  a  re- 
lease from  all  its  rights  to  the  lands  which  might  be  granted  to  the 
state.     Douglas  regarded  this  release  as  necessary  in  order  to  secure 

1  "From  the  southern  terminus  of  the  Illinois  and  Michigan  canal  to  a  point  at 
or  near  the  junction  of  the  Ohio  and  Mississippi  rivers  with  a  branch  of  the  same 
to  Chicago,  on  Lake  Michigan,  and  another  via  the  town  of  Galena  in  said  state 
to  Dubuque  in  the  state  of  Iowa."     Statutes  at  Large,  ix,  466. 

2  Moses,  Illinois,  Historical  and  Statistical,  Chicago,  1889,  I,  409-413. 

3  Davidson  and  Stuve,  History  of  Illinois,  Springfield,  1874,  573-74. 
*Private  Laws  of  Illinois,  1st  sess.  16th  Assembly,  90. 

(355) 


94  BULLETIN  OF  THE   UNIVERSITY  OP  WISCONSIN. 

the  passage  of  the  bill,5  but  it  is  not  clear  how  widespread  the  feeling 
against  the  company  was  or  what  were  the  grounds  for  it.  At  any  rate 
the  old  company  was  not  inclined  to  give  up  its  claim  to  the  lands  and 
a  struggle  in  the  legislature  ensued.  The  grant  was  at  last  conferred 
upon  a  company  organized  by  eastern  capitalists.0 

The  act  incorporating  the  new  company  provided  for  trustees  to 
supervise  the  disposal  of  the  lands,  which  were  to  be  sold  as  fifty-mile 
sections  of  the  road  were  completed.  The  main  liue  was  to  be  built, 
within  six  years.  The  lands  of  the  road  were  to  be  exempt  from 
taxation  and  in  lieu  of  this  five  per  cent,  of  the  gross  income  of  the 
road  each  year  was  to  be  paid  into  the  state  treasury.  The  other  assets 
of  the  company  were  to  be  exempt  from  taxation  for  six  years,  and 
after  that  any  excess  over  three-quarters  of  one  per  cent,  on  the  taxa- 
tion of  these  assets  was  to  be  deducted  from  the  five  per  cent,  income 
tax.7  The  company  seems  to  have  been  willing  to  agree  to  as 
high  as  ten  per  cent,  tax,8  but  this  was  not  necessary.  In  1870  an 
amendment  to  the  Illinois  Constitution  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  147,032 
to  21,310,  prohibiting  any  modification  of  this  law.9 

The  new  company  was  organized  in  March,  1851,  and  the  construction 
of  the  road  begun  during  the  summer  of  1852.  In  September,  1855,  the 
whole  road  was  opened  for  traffic.1"  The  entire  length  of  the  road 
was  705.5  miles,  which  would  have  given  the  company,  if  all  the  lands 
had  been  unoccupied,  2,709,100  acres.  Of  this  amount  the  company  has 
received  2,595,053  acres.11 

It  was  decided  by  the  directors  to  divide  the  lands  into  the  following 
classes:  For  construction,  2,000,000  acres;  for  interest  on  bonds,  250,000 
acres;  free  lands,  345,000  acres.  The  price  was  fixed  in  185G  at  from 
$5  to  $25  an  acre,  to  be  sold  on  six-year  credit,  with  interest  at  three 
per  cent.  The  deed  was  not  given  until  the  entire  price  was  paid,  and 
so  the  exemption  from  taxation  was  secured  to  the  purchaser  for  six 
years.  It  was  required  that  the  lands  should  be  put  under  cultivation." 
The  actual  average  price  received  for  the  lands  up  to  1872  was  $10.09 
an  acre.13  After  that  the  price  decreased,  until  in  1883  it  had  reached 
$4.30.    Since  then  it  has  increased  and  was  $7.59  in  1895. " 

0  Douglas  to  Breese,  Feb.  22,  1851,  Springfield  Daily  Register,  March  13,  1851 ; 
Fergus  Historical  Scries,  No.  23,  9G-7. 

6  Davidson  and  Stuve,  History  of  Illinois,  576-81. 

7  Private  Laics  of  Illinois,  1st  sess.  16th  assembly,  61. 

8  Bonham,  Fifty  Years'  Recollections,  Peoria,  1SS3,  460. 
8  Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  265. 

10  Poor,  Railway  Manual,  1879,  739-40. 

11  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  Report,     1897,  225. 

12  Circular  Concerning  the  Illinois  Central  Lands,  New  York,  1S56. 

13  Poor,  Railway  Manual,  1872-73,  540. 
"Poor,  Railway  Manuals. 

(356) 


SANBORN — RAILROAD  LAND  GRANTS. 


95 


It  was  stated  in  Congress  that  the  plan  of  the  company  was  to  hold 
its  lands  until  the  increase  of  population  had  raised  their  value,  and 
during  the  interim  the  money  for  the  road  was  to  be  secured  by 
means  of  bonds.1''  Xo  such  intention  is  evident  in  the  action  of  the 
company,  for  the  lands  were  freely  offered  at  the  price  above  men- 
tioned and  their  sale  was  quite  rapid.  Up  to  and  including  1855,  lands 
to  the  amount  of  528,863  acres  had  been  sold.18  This  was  for  only  sev- 
enteen months,  as  the  lands  were  not  put  on  the  market  until  August, 
1854.  By  1861  the  sales  had  amounted  to  1,200,000  acres;17  by  1872  the 
company  had  disposed  of  2,215,789  acres,"  and  in  1895  only  87,373  acres 
remained.18 

The  largest  sales  up  to  1S65  had  been  in  the«central  portion  of  the 
state,  from  Centralia  north  to  La  Salle  and  Kankakee.  In  the  south  the 
saleswerevery  light,  while  in  the  northern  portion  of  the  state  the  com- 
pany received  few  lands.20  In  1873  the  lands  remaining  in  the  hands  of 
the  company  were  nearly  all  south  of  Centralia.21  There  had  been  re- 
ceived from  the  lands  sold  up  to  1872  something  over  twenty-three 
million  dollars.-  From  1872  to  1880  complete  figures  are  not  obtainable; 
from  1880  to  1890,  $936,923  were  received.23 

The  building  of  the  road  accomplished  the  avowed  purpose  for  which 
the  grant  was  made:  the  sale  of  the  public  lands.  As  early  as  1852  the 
land  commissioner  considered  that  the  sale  of  lands  had  demonstrated 
the  success  of  the  bill,2*  and  by  1855  it  was  reported  that  all  of  the  gov- 
ernment lands  were  sold.25 

MICHIGAN. 

The  first  grant  to  Michigan  was  that  of  June  3,  1856,  by  which  several 
railroads  were  provided  for.28    The  legislature  of  Michigan  accepted  the 

"Glote,  1st  sess.   32d  Cong.,  App.,  808. 

16  Gerhard,  Illinois  as  It  Is,  407. 

17  Circular  in  regard  to  the  Illinois  Central  lands,  Chicago,  1S61. 

18  Poor,  Railway  Manual,  1872-73,  540. 

19  Ibid.,  1896,  565. 

20  Map  of  Illinois  Central  Lands,  Chicago,  1865. 
"Vernon,  American  Railroad  Manual,  1S74,  530. 
»Poor,  Railway  Manual.  1872-73,  540. 

,3Poor,  Railway  Manuals. 

""The  grant  to  the  Mobile  and  Chicago  railroad,  made  by  the  act  of  20th  Sep- 
tember, 1850,  so  far  as  the  state  of  Illinois  is  concerned,  where  the  selections 
have  been  completed  and  the  lands  retained  by  the  government  brought  into  mar- 
ket, is  strongly  in  point  in  support  of  this  view.  Here  the  greatest  anxiety  was 
manifested  to  obtain  lands  along  the  road,  even  at  the  enhanced  minimum,  and 
thousands  of  acres  were  disposed  of  that  would  probably  have  remained  unsold 
for  many  years."     Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  Report,  1852,  78. 

•'Bankers'  Magazine,  ix,  815. 

29 "From  Little  Bay  de  Noquet  to  Marquette  and  thence  to  Ontonagon,  and 
from  the  two  last  named  places  to  the  Wisconsin  State  line  ;  and  also  from  Am- 

(357) 


9G  BULLETIN  OF  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  WISCONSIN. 

grant  and  disposed  of  it  to  various  companies.  The  lands  were  to  be 
given  the  companies  in  sixty-section  lots  as  each  twenty  miles  of  the 
road  were  completed,  and  were  to  be  free  from  taxation  for  seven 
years.  A  board  of  control  was  provided  which  was  to  supervise  the  sale 
of  the  lands  and  to  declare  the  grants  forfeited  in  case  the  conditions 
were  not  fulfilled.  A  special  tax  of  one  per  cent,  on  the  cost  of  the 
road  was  levied  and  the  legislature  had  power  to  increase  this  to  two 
per  cent,  after  ten  years.  The  tax,  however,  was  not  to  apply  to  the 
roads  on  the  Upper  Peninsula  until  after  ten  years,  and  the  Detroit 
and  Milwaukee  and  the  Port  Huron  and  Milwaukee  were  to  be  liable  to 
an  increase  only  in  proportion  to  the  lands  received." 

The  road  from  Little  Bay  de  Noquet  to  Marquette  was  opened  in 
1864,  and  the  same  year  it  passed  into  the  hands  of  the  Chicago  and 
Northwestern  railroad  company/5  A  joint  resolution  of  July  5,  1862,™ 
authorized  the  re-location  of  the  road  from  Marquette  to  the  state 
line,  and  an  act  of  March  3,  1865,30  recognized  the  route  as  via  Bay  de 
Noquet.  Under  these  acts  the  Chicago  and  Northwestern  built  from 
the  Wisconsin  line  to  Escanaba  (Bay  de  Noquet)  in  1872."  From  1878 
the  highest  annual  average  which  the  Northwestern  has  obtained  for 
its  Michigan  lands  has  been  $4.79,  and  the  lowest  $1.65.  In  18S2  the 
highest  point  in  annual  sales  was  reached,  56,937  acres  having  been 
disposed  of  at  that  time.  Of  late  years  there  has  been  a  decrease  in  the 
lands  sold,  during  1897  the  amount  being  5,147  acres.32 

The  time  for  the  completion  of  the  road  from  Marquette  to  Onto- 
nagon was  extended  to  December  31,  1872.  ="  Within  the  time  required 
the  road  was  built  from  a  point  twenty  miles  west  of  Marquette  to 
L'Anse,  fifty-two  miles.34  The  portion  from  L'Anse  to  Ontonagon  has 
never  been  constructed,  and  an  act  of  March  2,  1889,  forfeited  the  lands 
opposite  to  the  uncompleted  portion  of  the  road.35 

No  portion  of  the  Ontonagon  and  state  line  road  was  constructed 
within  the  time  required,  and  in  1868  the  governor  released  to  the  gov- 
ernment the  lands  certified  for  the  benefit  of  the  road.  In  1880  the 
board  of  control,  ignoring  the  release  of  the  governor,  conferred  the 

boy,  by  Hillsdale  and  Lansing  and  from  Grand  Rapids  to  some  point  on  or  near 
Traverse  Bay  ;  also  from  Grand  Haven  and  Fere  Marquette  to  Flint  and  thence 
to  Port  Huron."     Statutes  at  Large,  xi,  21. 

-''Laics  of  Michigan,  1857,  346-53. 

28 Poor,  Railway  Manual,  1882,  672. 

19 Statutes  at  Large,  xii,  620. 

30  Ibid.,  xiii.  520. 

airooi\  Railway  Manual,  18S2,  672. 

KAnnual  Reports  C.  &  N.  TF.  Railroad. 

« Statutes  at  Large,  xv,  252. 

a*  Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  799. 

""Statutes  at  Large,  xxv,  1008. 

(358) 


SANBORN  —  RAILROAD    LAND    GRANTS.  97 

grant  on  the  Ontonagon  and  Brule  Elver  company."0  In  1889  the  grant 
was  forfeited,  with  the  exception  of  twenty  miles  from  Ontonagon  to 
Rockland. 37 

The  grant  for  a  road  from  Amboy  to  a  point  on  Traverse  Bay  was 
first  conferred  on  the  Amboy,  Lansing,  and  Traverse  Bay  company. 
Later  that  portion  of  the  grant  north  of  Lansing  was  given  to  the  Jack- 
son, Lansing,  and  Saginaw  company,  and  the  portion  south  of  Lansing 
to  the  Northern  Central  Michigan  railroad  company.  The  time  for  the 
completion  of  the  road  was  in  1S66  extended  to  June  3,  1873.  The  road 
was  built  from  Lansing  to  Owasso,  twenty-eight  miles,  by  the  Amboy, 
Lansing,  and  Traverse  Bay  company.  By  June  3,  1873,  the  Jackson, 
Lansing,  and  Saginaw  company  had  built  one  hundred  and  sixty  miles 
north  from  Owasso.  By  an  act  of  March  3,  1S73,  the  northern  terminus 
of  the  road  was  changed  from  Traverse  Bay  to  Mackinaw  City,  which 
point  was  reached  by  1882.  South  of  Lansing  the  building  of  sixty 
miles  from  Lansing  to  Jonesville  was  certified  by  the  governor  in 
1873.  The  portion  from  Jonesville  was  never  built.38  No  additional 
lands  were  granted  by  the  change  of  the  northern  terminus,  and  there 
have  been  certified  on  account  of  this  road  743,787  acres.33 

The  grant  for  a  road  from  Grand  Rapids  to  Traverse  Bay  was  as- 
signed to  the  Grand  Rapids  and  Indiana  company.  In  1865  the  time 
for  the  building  of  the  road  was  extended  eight  years,  or  until  June  3, 
187-i.    The  road  was  opened  to  Traverse  Bay  in  December,  1872.*° 

The  legislature  had  conferred  the  grant  for  a  road  from  Grand  Haven 
to  Port  Huron  on.  two  companies,  the  portion  from  Port  Huron  to 
Owasso  on  the  Port  Huron  and  Milwaukee,  and  the  portion  between 
Owasso  and  Grand  Haven  on  the  Detroit  and  Milwaukee.  The  later 
company  accepted  the  grant,  except  as  to  the  conditions  of  sections 
eleven  and  twenty  of  the  act,  which  related  to  a  control  over  the  lands 
by  the  state,  and  the  tax  on  the  road.  The  board  of  control  held  that 
this  was  not  a  sufficient  acceptance  of  the  grant.  The  company  built 
the  road  in  1859,  but  made  no  effort  to  claim  the  lands."  Of  the  portion 
east  of  Owasso,  thirty  and  five-tenths  miles  were  built  on  time  and 
the  remaining  sixty  miles  before  1890.42 

The  grant  from  Pere  Marquette  to  Flint  was  given  to  the  Flint  and 
Pere  Marquette  company.     The    time    for  the    completion  of  the  road 

86 Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  800. 

"Statutes  at  Large,  xxv,  1008. 

88  Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  798-9. 

38  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  Report,  1897,  227. 

40 Poor,  Railway  Manual,  1882,  595,  597. 

*x  Rogers  v.  Port  Huron  &  Lake  Michigan  R.  R.,  45  Mich.,  460. 

*3IIouse  Reports,  1st  sess.  5 1st  Cong.,  No.  1179. 

(359) 


98  BULLETIN  OF  THE   UNIVERSITY  OP  WISCONSIN. 

was  fixed  at  March  3,  1876,  and  the  road  was  opened  in  December,  1874." 
There  have  been  certified  to  the  state  on  account  of  this  grant  512,877 

acres.44 

June  7,  1864,  a  further  grant  was  made  for  a  road  from  Fort  Wayne, 
Indiana,  to  Grand  Rapids.45  This  road  was  to  form  an  extension  of 
the  road  from  Grand  Rapids  to  Traverse  Bay.  The  portion  from  Grand 
Eapids  to  Fort  Wayne  was  built  in  1S70.4" 

For  most  of  the  Michigan  roads  the  information  regarding  the  use  of 
the  lands  has  been  too  scanty  to  be  of  any  importance  in  a  general 
study  of  the  subject. 

WISCONSIN. 

In  1856,  under  an  act  approved  June  3,  two  grants  were  made  to  Wis- 
consin.47 These  were  known  as  the  Northwest  and  the  Northeast 
grants,  respectively,  and  were  given  by  the  legislature  to  different  com- 
panies after  a  struggle  which  showed  the  worst  possibilities  of  land- 
grant  legislation.  A  bill  was  passed  disposing  of  the  two  grants,  the 
one  to  the  La  Crosse  and  Milwaukee,  and  the  other  to  the  Wisconsin 
and  Lake  Superior  company.  This  was  vetoed  by  Governor  Bashford 
on  account  of  numerous  objections  which  he  expressed  regarding  the 
bill.43  These  objections  were  only  partially  met  by  two  new  bills,  dis- 
posing of  the  two  grants  on  nearly  the  same  terms,  but  these  received 
his  approval. 

Charges  of  bribery  and  corruption  in  connection  with  these  bills 
were  soon  heard,  and  in  his  message  for  1S58  Governor  Eandall  called 
the  attention  of  the  legislature  to  these  charges.49  An  investigating 
committee  was  appointed  and  their  report  revealed  an  astonishing  state 
of  affairs.  They  found  that  thirteen  senators  and  fifty-nine  assembly- 
men had  received  stock  or  bonds  in  the  La  Crosse  and  Milwaukee  com- 
pany, varying  in  value  from  $5,000  to  $25,000.  Governor  Bashford's 
share  in  the  plunder  had  been  $50,000  worth  of  bonds.50  The  commit- 
tee were  very  positive  in  their  statement  of  the  case,51  and  the  testi- 
mony of  Byron  Kilburn  that  he  "caused  it  to  be  understood,  through 

43  Poor,  Railway  Manual,  1S80,  661. 

44  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  Report,  1897,  227. 

45  Statutes  at  Large,  xiii,  119. 

46 Poor,  Railway  Manual,  1S82,  595. 

47  "From  Madison,  or  Columbus,  by  the  way  of  Portage  City  to  the  St.  Croix 
River  or  Lake  between  townships  twenty-five  and  thirty-one,  and  from  thence  to 
the  west  end  of  Lake  Superior  :  and  to  Bayfield,  and  also  from  Fond  du  Lac  on 
Lake  Winnebago,  northerly  to  the  State  line."     Statutes  at  Large,  xi,  20. 

4S Senate  Journal,  1S56,  1143. 

40  Governor's  Message,  1858,  23. 

^Report  of  Investigating  Committee,  5-7,  10. 

61  "The  evidence  taken  establishes  the  fact  that  the  managers  of  the  La  Crosse 
and  Milwaukee  Railroad  company  have  been  guilty  of  numerous  and  unparalleled 

(360) 


SANBORN — RAILROAD  LAND  GRANTS.  99 

the  medium  of  persons  not  connected  with  the  legislature,  that  in  the 
event  of  the  La  Crosse  company  obtaining-  the  grant,  that  company 
would  acknowledge  the  favor  by  a  liberal  douceur  or  gratuity  to  such 
members  as  should  favor  its  passage,"6-  may  be  taken  as  very  good 
proof  of  something  so  like  bribery  that  perhaps  only  a  railway  presi- 
dent would  have  thought  to  have  drawn  the  distinction. 

The  committee  accused  only  the  La  Crosse  and  Milwaukee  company 
of  bribery  in  obtaining  its  grant;  but  Byron  Kilburn  claimed  that  the 
Wisconsin  and  Superior  was  equally  guilty,  and  that  the  committee  had 
"whitewashed"  the  officers  of  this  company.63  As  this  statement  was 
made  in  a  private  communication  and  never  published,  Mr.  Kilburn  was 
undoubtedly  sincere  in  making  it;  but  I  have  found  no  evidence  which 
would  confirm  the  accusation. 

The  grant  to  the  La  Crosse  company  repeated  the  provisions  of  the 
act  of  Congress  and  also  provided  for  the  construction  of  the  roads 
from  Madison  and  Columbus  to  Portage  by  December  31,  1858.  The 
company  was  to  pay  four  per  cent,  on  its  gross  earnings  in  lieu  of  all 
taxes.  Lands  remaining  unsold  after  five  years  were  to  be  publicly 
offered  for  sale  in  limited  quantities,  preference  being  given  to  actual 
settlers.64  The  grant  to  the  Wisconsin  and  Superior  company  was  very 
similar,  except  that  three  per  cent,  of  the  gross  earnings  was  to  be 
paid  in  lieu  of  taxes.  . 

The  La  Crosse  and  Milwaukee,  or  the  companies  with  which  it  had 
consolidated,  had  alreadj'  built  a  road  from  Milwaukee  to  Portage,  but 
which  passed  through  Horicon  instead  of  Columbus.  This  road  was 
continued  from  Portage  on  the  line  of  the  land  grant  as  far  as  Tomah, 
but  there  it  turned  west  to  La  Crosse,  which  was  reached  in  1858.  The 
line  from  Columbus  to  Portage  was  built  in  1864,  and  the  line  from 
Madison  to  Portage  in  1870. 60  Thus  only  the  portion  of  the  road  from 
Portage  to  Tomah,  sixty  miles,  was  constructed  according  to  the  pro- 
visions of  the  original  act. 

On  account,  of  the  failure  to  build  the  road  from  Madison  and  Colum- 
bus, Governors  Randall  and  Salomon  refused  to  certify  the  lands  to  the 
company.67  But  in  1868  the  legislature  provided  that  the  lands  patented 
to  the  state  on  account  of  the  line  between  Portage  and  Tomah  should 

acts  of  mismanagement,   gross   violations   of  duty,   fraud   and   plunder.     In  fact 
corruption  and  wholesale  plundering  are  common  features."     Ibid.,  47. 

62  Ibid.,  App.,  7. 

63  Kilburn  to  Downer,  ms.  in  library  of  Wisconsin  State  Historical  Society,  pp. 
9-11. 

"General  Laics  of  Wisconsin,  1856,  217. 

65  Ibid.,  239. 

""Wisconsin  Railroad  Commissioner,  Report,  1888,  387. 

erCary,  Organization  and  History  C,  M.  &  St.  P.  Railroad,  22-3. 

(361) 


100  BULLETIN   OP  THE   UNIVERSITY  OF   WISCONSIN. 

be  granted  to  the  Wisconsin  Farm  Mortgage  Land  company.  This 
consisted  of  commissioners  named  in  the  act,  who  were  to  manage 
the  lands  in  the  interest  of  the  farmers  along  the  line  who  had 
subscribed  for  stock  in  the  La  Crosse  and  Milwaukee  company  and 
mortgaged  their  lands  as  security.  Annual  reports  were  to  be  made  to 
the  secretary  of  state.01*  The  commissioners  reported  in  1S74  that  they 
had  received  68,820  acres,  of  which  44,350  acres  had  been  sold  for 
$45,628.  Claims  aggregating  $951,356  had  been  filed  with  them.59  Subse- 
quent reports  of  the  commissioners  were  not  published,  and  a  search 
in  the  state  archives  has  failed  to  reveal  them. 

In  1861  the  grant  from  Madison  and  Columbus  to  Portage  was  taken 
from  the  La  Crosse  and  Milwaukee  company  and  given  to  the  Sugar 
Kiver  Valley  railroad  company.  The  road  was  to  be  constructed  by 
December  31,  1863.00  In  1866  the  time  for  building  the  road  was  ex- 
tended to  December  31,  1869,  and  the  company  relieved  from  the  obli- 
gation of  building  from  Columbus  to  Portage.01  In  1S70  the  Madison 
and  Portage  company,  which  had  purchased  the  property  of  the  Sugar 
River  Valley  company  was  given  the  same  rights  to  the  grant." 

There  were  no  government  lands  between  Madison  and  Portage  by 
the  time  the  road  was  built,  and  the  company  claimed  indemnity  lands 
from,  the  grant  north  of  Tomah.  This  claim  was  disallowed  and  no 
lands  have  been  received  for  this  portion  of  the  road.  The  govern- 
ment endeavored  to  treat  the  line  as  a  land-grant  road  in  regard  to  the 
compensation  for  carrying  mail,  but  this  point  was  decided  in  favor 
of  the  company.83 

That  portion  of  the  land  grant  from  Tomah  to  Lake  St.  Croix  was 
in  1S63  resumed  by  the  state  and  given  to  a  company  which  afterward 
became  the  St.  Paul,  Minneapolis  and  Omaha.  The  grant  from  St.  Croix 
to  Bayfield  was  conferred  on  another  company,  which  failed  to  con- 
consolidated  with  the  Omaha  company  and  built  the  road.64  Con- 
company,  which  had  applied  for  it,  but  which  afterward  refused  to 
accept  it.  It  was  then  given  to  the  North  Wisconsin  company,  which 
consolidated  with  the  Omaha  company  and  built  the  road.04  Con- 
gress had  meanwhile,  by  act  of  May  5,  1864,  renewed  the  grant 
with  limits  increased  to  ten  and  twenty  miles.  The  time  for  the  com- 
pletion of  the  road  was  extended  five  years  from  the  passage  of  the 

58 Private  and  Local  Lairs  of  Wisconsin,  1868,  114,9. 

59 Wisconsin  Railroad  Commissioner,  Report,  1874,  237. 

^Private  and  Local  Laics  of  Wisconsin,  1861,  333. 

61  Ibid.,  1866,  1345. 

82  Ibid.,  1870,  284. 

63Cary,  Organization  and  History  C,  M.  &  St.  P.  Railroad,  200. 

61  Ibid. 

(362) 


SANBORN RAILROAD  LAND  GRANTS.  101 

act,  or  three  years  beyond  the  original  time."  The  road  as  built  by  the 
Omaha  company  did  not  begin  at  Tomah,  but  at  Elroy,  near  Tomah,  but 
on  the  Chicago  and  Northwestern  line.  As  thus  located  the  road  was 
built  to  Lake  St.  Croix  in  1872,  to  Bayfield  in  1SS3,  and  to  Superior  in 
1S84.60 

On  account  of  the  continuity  of  the  grant  of  1856  it  was  claimed  that 
deficiencies  along  one  section  of  the  road  could  be  made  up  from  the 
indemnity  limits  of  another  section.  But  it  was  decided  by  the  United 
States  Circuit  court  that  the  effect  of  the  act  of  1S64  was  to  make  dis- 
tinct grants  and  to  break  up  the  continuity  of  the  former  grant,  so 
that  each  company  was  confined  to  its  own  portion  of  the  road.07 

For  the  grant  from  Tomah  to  St.  Croix,  the  state  has  received  813,706 
acres;  for  the  St.  Croix  and  Superior  grant,  854,221  acres,  and  for  thd 
Bayfield  branch,  503,018  acres.08  By  1880  there  had  been  sold  of  the 
grant  from  Tomah  to  St.  Croix,  330,127  acres.  Of  these  77,374  acres 
had  been  sold  for  $307,654.  The  price  of  the  remainder,  which  had  been 
sold  by  the  West  Wisconsin  company,  is  not  obtainable.""  The  company 
has  since  acquired  the  land  grants  to  Minnesota  and  Iowa  for  the 
St.  Paul  and  Sioux  City  and  the  Sioux  City  and  St.  Paul  roads.  Under 
all  the  grants  the  company  has  received  2,183,867  acres,  of  which  it  has 
disposed  of  1,774.060  acres.  The  cash  receipts  have  amounted  to 
$8,000,856,  and  there  are  clue  on  time  sales  $91,011.70 

The  northeast  grant,  as  before  stated,  was  given  to  the  Wisconsin 
and  Superior  railroad  company.  A  resolution  of  Congress  of  April  25, 
1862,  made  some  slight  changes  in  the  route,  but  provided  that  the 
lands  granted  shoxild  not  be  affected.71  This  company  soon  became 
the  Chicago  and  Northwestern  and  built  the  road  to  Fort  Howard  in 
1862,  and  to  the  state  line  in  1871."  Under  the  grant  546,446  acres  have 
been  received  by  the  state."  Of  these  there  remained  unsold  on  May 
31,  1897,  281,974  acres.74  The  sale  of  lands  has  never  been  very  rapid,  the 
highest  mark  being  reached  in  1882,  when  14,656  acres  were  disposed 
of.  Of  late  years  it  has  not  risen  much  above  1,000  acres  a  year.  The 
average  price  obtained  for  the  lands  has  varied  from  $11.27,  in  1885,  to 
$1.65  in  1SS8.     In  1S97  it  was  $5.55.     From  the  lands  the  company  has 

63  Statutes  at  Large,  xiii,  68. 

60  Wisconsin  Railroad  Commissioner,  Report,  1888,  389. 

"Madison  £  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Wisconsin,  et  al.     Federal  Cases,  xvi,  366. 

6S  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  Report,  1897,  228. 

69 Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  779. 

70 Railroad  Commissioner,  Report,  1897,  119. 

71  Statutes  at  Large,  xii,  618. 

"Wisconsin  Railroad  Commissioner,  Report,  1888,  388. 

"Commissioner  General  Land  Office,  Report,  1897,  228. 

74 Chicago  and  Northwestern  Co.,  Report,  1897,  20. 

(363) 


102  BULLETIN   OP  THE    UNIVERSITY  OP  WISCONSIN. 

obtained  since  1878,  when  the  first  separate  reports  are  given,  $658,424. 
This  includes  the  amount  received  from  trespass  and  stumpage,  which 
in  Wisconsin  frequently  exceeded  the  receipts  from  land  sales.75  For 
its  entire  system,  including  grants  in  Wisconsin,  Minnesota,  and  Michi- 
gan, the  company  has  received  3,091,669  acres,  of  which  it  has  sold 
2,422,796  acres,  for  $8,715,350,  with  $849,311  due  on  contracts.76  In  its 
report  for  1898  the  company  credited  its  land  department  with  a  bal- 
ance  of  $2,374,516.77 

The  act  of  May  25,  1864,  in  addition  to  the  renewal  of  the  previous 
grants,  contained  a  provision  for  another  road  from  the  central  portion 
of  the  state  to  Lake  Superior.78  The  legislature  gave  this  grant  to  two 
companies.  The  Portage  and  Superior  railroad  company,  incorporated 
April  9,  1866,  received  the  lands  for  a  road  from  Portage  to  Stevens 
Point,  and  one-half  of  the  lands  from  Stevens  Point  to  Superior.  The 
road  was  to  be  exempt  from  taxation  and  to  pay  three  per  cent,  of 
its  gross  earnings  to  the  state.78  An  act  of  April  6  gave  one-half  of 
the  grant  from  Stevens  Point  to  Superior  to  the  Winnebago  and  Lake 
Superior  railroad  company  under  the  same  conditions.  Consolidation 
with  the  Chicago  and  Northwestern  was  forbidden.00 

As  might  have  been  expected,  the  two  companies  soon  united  as  the 
Portage,  Winnebago,  and  Superior  railroad  company.81  In  1871  it 
became  the  Wisconsin  Central  Railroad  company,  which  built  the  road. 
By  an  act  of  Congress  of  April  9,  1874,  the  time  within  which  the  road 
was  to  be  built  was  extended  to  December  31,  1876.82  By  that  time  the 
division  between  Portage  and  Stevens  Point  was  constructed  and  all  but 
the  ten  miles  between  Butternut  Creek  and  Chippewa  Crossing,  on  the 
Stevens  Point  and  Ashland  division,  which  were  built  in  1S77." 

The  company  has  received  834,999  acres  under  the  grant,  with  49,834 
acres  estimated  as  still  due.8*  Up  to  1880  it  had  sold  88,977  acres  for 
$229,325,  while  the  sale  of  stumpage  from  the  lands  had  amounted  to 
$222,343. 8G  In  1890  the  sales  had  been  268,194  acres  for  $765,041,  while 
the  receipts  from  stumpage  had  been  $962,960.8S 

76  See  Chicago  and  Northwestern  Co.,  Reports,  1875-97. 

70  Rail  road  Commissioner,  Report,  1897,  108. 

"Chicago  and  Northwestern  Co.,  Report,  1898,  39. 

7S"From  Fortage  City,  Berlin,  Doty's  Island  or  F-on  [sic]  du  Lac,  as  said  state 
may  determine,  in  a  northwestern  direction  to  Bayfield,  and  thence  to  Superior, 
on  Lake  Superior."     Statutes  at  Large,  xiil,  66. 

n Private  and  Local  Laws  of  Wisconsin,  1866,  869. 

80  Ibid.,  730. 

81  Ibid.,  1869,  578. 

82  Statutes  at  Large,  xviii,  28. 

83  Wisconsin  Railroad  Commissioner,  Report,  1888,  391. 
"Commissioner  General  Land  Oflice,  Report,  1897,  228,  224. 
85 Report  to  Trustees  Wisconsin  Central  Co.,  1880,  36. 

89 Wisconsin  Central  Co.,  Second  Report,  1890,  39. 

(364) 


SANBORN — RAILROAD    LAND    GRANTS.  103 


MINNESOTA. 

A  grant  was  made  to  Minnesota  in  1853,  but  this  was  immediately  re- 
pealed,"7 so  that  it  was  not  until  1857  that  a  permanent  grant  was  se- 
cured. On  March  3d  of  that  year  a  grant  of  lands  was  made  to  the  state 
for  various  roads.83  In  1865  these  grants  were  changed  to  ten  and 
twenty  miles,  and  the  time  for  the  completion  of  the  road  extended 
to  eight  years  from  the  passage  of  that  act.83  An  act  of  the  Minne- 
sota legislature  of  May  22,  1857,  accepted  the  grant,  assigning  to  the 
Minnesota  and  Pacific  company  that  portion  of  the  grant  for  a  road 
from  Stillwater,  via  St.  Paul  and  St.  Anthony,  fixing  the  terminus  at 
Breckinridge,  and  the  branch  via  St.  Cloud  to  St.  Vincent;  to  the  Root 
Paver  Valley  and  Southern  Minnesota  company  the  grant  from  St.  Paul, 
via  Shakopee  Junction  to  the  southern  boundary  of  the  state,  and  the 
grant  from  La  Crescent  to  the  junction  with  the  road  from  Winona 
(fixed  at  Kochester) ;  to  the  Transit  railroad  company  the  grant  from 
Winona  to  the  Big  Sioux  river,  and  to  the  Minneapolis  and  Cedar  Val- 
ley company  the  grant  from  Minneapolis  to  the  southern  boundary  of 
the  state.  The  roads  were  to  pay  three  per  cent,  on  their  gross  earn- 
ings in  lieu  of  all  taxes.00 

The  Constitution  of  the  state  prohibited  the  loan  of  its  credit  in  aid 
of  the  railroads,  but  in  1858  an  amendment  was  adopted  by  a  vote 
of  25,023  to  6,733  allowing  an  issue  of  bonds  in  aid  of  the  land-grant 
roads.  In  1860  the  further  issue  of  bonds  was  prohibited."1  Under  this 
law  bonds  to  the  amount  of  $200,000  for  each  road  were  issued  by  the 
state. 

The  Minnesota  and  Pacific  was  surveyed  and  located,  but  no  work 
was  done  on  the  road.  In  1859  the  company  defaulted  on  the  interest 
on  its  bonds  and  the  mortgage  on  the  lands  was  foreclosed.  In  1861  the 
legislature  relieved  the  road  from  all  claims  of  the  state  against  it  on 

87  Supra,  pp.   51-53. 

88  "From  Stillwater,  by  way  of  Saint  Paul  and  Saint  Anthony,  to  a  point  be- 
tween the  foot  of  Big  Stone  Lake  and  the  mouth  of  Sioux  Wood  River,  with  a 
branch  via  Saint  Cloud  and  Crow  Wing,  to  the  navigable  waters  of  the  Red  River 
of  the  north,  at  such  point  as  the  Legislature  of  said  Territory  may  determine ; 
from  St.  Paul  and  from  Saint  Anthony,  via  Minneapolis,  to  a  convenient  point  of 
junction  west  of  the  Mississippi,  to  the  southern  boundary  of  the  Territory  in  the 
direction  of  the  mouth  of  the  Big  Sioux  River,  with  a  brancu,  via  Faribault,  to 
the  north  line  of  the  State  of  Iowa,  west  of  range  sixteen ;  from  Winona,  via  St. 
Peters,  to  a  point  on  the  Big  Sioux  river,  south  of  the  forty-fifth  parallel  of 
north  latitude ;  also  from  La  Crescent,  via  Target  Lake,  up  the  valley  of  Root 
River,  to  a  point  of  junction  with  the  last  mentioned  road,  east  of  range  seven- 
teen."    Statutes  at  Large,  xi,  195. 

«»Ibid.,  xiii,  526. 

<"> Session  Laics  of  the  Territory  of  Minnesota,  Extra  Session,  1857,  3-26. 

81  Neill,  History  of  Minnesota,  630-31. 

8  (365) 


104  BULLETIN  OF  THE   UNIVERSITY  OF    WISCONSIN. 

consideration  of  the  completion  of  the  road.  No  work  having  been 
done  in  1862,  the  rights  enjoj'ed  by  the  Minnesota  and  Pacific  were 
granted  to  the  St.  Paul  and  Pacific  company.92  The  portion  of  the  line 
from  St.  Anthony  to  Breckenridge,  known  as  the  first  division  of  the 
St.  Paul  and  Pacific,  was  built  in  1871, 93  within  the  time  required.  This 
line  became  later  a  part  of  the  St.  Paul,  Minneapolis,  and  Manitoba,  now 
Great  Northern,  system.  Under  the  grant  there  have  been  patented  for 
the  company  1,253,468  acres,  with  195,366  acres  still  due."  Up  to  1877 
there  had  been  sold  of  this  grant  and  the  one  for  the  line  to  St.  Vin- 
cent 458,S65  acres  for  $3,651,641,"  and  by  1897  there  had  been  2,052,282 
acres  sold,  for  $8,242,583,  with  $1,295,244  outstanding.  The  company 
still  owned  794,364  acres.00  When  the  state  boundaries  of  Minnesota 
were  adjusted,  it  was  found  that  part  of  this  grant  was  in  the  territory 
of  Dakota,  but  this  has  always  been  treated  as  if  it  were  in  Minnesota." 
In  1871   the   route  of  the  branch  of  the   St.  Paul   and  Pacific  was 

* 

changed  so  that  a  more  direct  line  could  be  secured.08  Two  hundred 
and  eight  miles  were  completed  by  1S76,  the  time  required,  and  the  re- 
mainder was  finished  in  1SS1.09  This  also  became  a  part  of  the  St.  Paul, 
Minneapolis  and  Manitoba,  and  its  lands  have  been  treated  in  connec- 
tion with  that  road. 

Under  the  act  of  1871,  re-locating  the  branch  of  the  St.  Paul  and 
Pacific,  the  "Western  Eailroad  of  Minnesota  had  built  from  Brainard 
to  Crow  Wing  in  1878.  The  distance  was  fifty-four  and  two-tenths 
miles,  but  for  sixteen  and  one-tenth  miles  in  the  Fort  Ripley  reserva- 
tion no  lands  were  received.100  There  have  been  patented  for  the  com- 
pany 666,865  acres,101  but  information  as  to  their  disposal  is  not  ob- 
tainable. 

The  Root  River  Valley  and  Southern  Minnesota  company  failed  to 
build  the  line  from  St.  Paul  to  the  Iowa  line  and  in  1S64  the  grant  was 
given  to  the  Minnesota  Valley  company,  afterward  the  St.  Paul  and 
Sioux  City  company.  This  built  to  the  line  between  Minnesota  and 
Iowa  in  1870,  forming  a  connection  with  the  Sioux  City  and  St.  Paul.101 
The  state  has  received  1,123,57S  acres  on  account  of  the  grant.103    Up 

s-Farnsworth  v.  Minn.  <£  Pac.  R.  Co.,  92  U.  S.,  49. 
93 Poor,  Railway  Manual,  1884,  747. 

M  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  Report,  1S97,  228,  223. 
05 Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  779. 
96  Railroad  Commissioner,  Report,  1897,  150. 
w St.  Paul,  M.  &  M.  Co.  v.  Phelps,  137  U.  S.,  528. 
95  Statutes  at  Large,  xvii,  631. 
"Neill,  History  of  Minnesota,  787. 
100 Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  803-4. 

101  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  Report,  1897,  229. 
10,Poor,  Railway  Manual,  1880,  S30. 

103  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  Report,  1897,  229. 

(366) 


SANBORN RAILROAD    LAND    GRANTS.  105 

to  1SS0  there  had  been  sold  324,543  acres  for  $2,099,387.1    Since  then  the 
line  has  been  owned  by  the  Chicago,  St.  Paul,  Minneapolis  and  Omaha. 

The  other  portion  of  the  grant  to  the  Root  Kiver  Valley  company, 
providing  for  a  road  from  La  Crescent  to  the  junction  with  the  Wi- 
nona and  St.  Peter  road,  was  in  1864  conferred  on  the  Southern  Min- 
nesota railroad  company.  In  1866  Congress  made  a  grant  for  a  road 
from  Houston  to  the  western  boundary  of  the  state.  The  grant 
amounted  to  five  sections  a  mile  on  each  side  of  the  road  and  the 
road  was  to  be  finished  within  ten  years.2  The  Southern  Minnesota  had 
built  to  Winnebago,  one  hundred  and  sixty-seven  miles,  in  1870.s  In 
1878  the  legislature  conferred  the  grant  of  1866  upon  the  Southern 
Minnesota  Railway  Extension  company,  requiring  the  completion  of 
the  road  by  the  last  of  1SS0.4  The  road  was  built  to  Flandrau,  Dakota, 
by  January  1,  1880.6  The  road  as  constructed  was  not  on  the  line  of 
the  original  grant,  but  the  interior  department  decided  that  the  diverg- 
ence was  not  enough  to  forfeit  the  grant.6  The  state  has  received 
546,2S4  acres,  on  account  of  the  grant,7  information  as  to  which  is  lack- 
ing. The  road  is  now  owned  by  the  Chicago,  Milwaukee,  and  St.  Paul 
company. 

The  Transit  railway  was  sold  under  foreclosure  by  the  state  in  1S60, 
and  the  Winona  and  St.  Peter  was  chartered  to  build  the  road  in  1862. 
By  this  company  the  road  was  constructed  to  New  Ulm  in  1872,  and  to 
the  Dakota  line  in  1874.8  The  road  has  received  1,678,618  acres  under  its 
grant.9  Up  to  1SS0  it  had  sold  557,574  acres,  for  $1,045,801. 10  From 
1880  to  1890  there  had  been  sold  861,303  acres,  for  $3,409,981,  and  from 
1890  to  1897  the  sales  amounted  to  272,50S  acres  for  $2,077,435."  An 
interesting  feature  of  the  sale  of  these  lands  was  the  fact  that  Arch- 
bishop Ireland  acted  as  an  agent  for  their  sale,  in  order  to  establish  a 
colony  of  immigrants  in  Minnesota.12 

The  Minneapolis  and  Cedar  Valley  railroad  company  became  the 
Minneapolis,  Faribault,  and  Cedar  Valley  company,  and  later  the  Minne- 
sota Central  Railway  company.  In  1866  it  had  built  seventy-one  miles 
of  road,  to  Owatonna,  and  in  that  year  the  road  was  sold  to  the  Mc- 

I  Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  779. 
2 Statutes  at  Large,  xiv,  87. 
3Cary,  C,  M.  &  St.  Paul  Road,  164. 

*  Special  Laics  of  Minnesota,  1878,  537. 
BCary,  C,  M.  &  St.  Paul  Road,  167. 

«  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  Report,  1880,  520. 

7  Ibid.,  1897,  229. 

•Poor,  Railway  Manual,  1880,  837. 

*  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  Report,  1897,  229. 
"Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  779. 

II  Chicago  &  Northwestern  Railroad,  Reports,  1880-1897. 
12  Ibid.,  1880,  26. 

(367) 


106  BULLETIN  OP  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  WISCONSIN. 

Gregor  Western  company,  the  Minnesota  Central  retaining  the  lands.18 
The  former  company  built  to  Owatonna,  via  Austin  in  1867. 14  This, 
however,  brought  the  road  east  of  range  sixteen  at  the  state  line.  In 
1870  the  Minnesota  Central  company  built  from  Austin  to  the  state  line, 
thus  earning  the  grant.15  179,734  acres  have  been  patented  on  account 
of  this  grant,  no  information  concerning  which  is  given  in  the  report  of 
the  company.18 

May  5,  1S64,  an  act  was  signed  granting  lands  for  a  railroad  from 
St.  Paul  to  the  head  of  Lake  Superior.17  The  road  should  have  been 
built  May  5,  1872,  but  was  not  finished  until  February  28,  1873.18  Up 
to  June  30,  1880,  of  the  860,564  acres  patented  only  28,964  had  been  sold 
for  $106,462.19  By  1886,  308,955  acres  had  been  sold  for  $1,157,054,-°  and 
by  1897,  526,687  acres  for  $2,558,589." 

The  act  of  July  6,  1S66,  also  made  a  grant  for  a  road  from  Hastings 
to  the  western  boundary  of  the  state.22  This  grant  was  in  1867  con- 
ferred upon  the  Hastings,  Minnesota,  and  Red  River  of  the  North  rail- 
road company,  the  name  of  the  company  being  the  same  year  changed 
to  the  Hastings  and  Dakota.  The  road  was  built  to  the  state  line  in 
1879.23  There  have  been  patented  to  the  state  on  account  of  this  grant 
364,628  acres.24    Information  as  to  their  disposal  is  lacking. 

IOWA. 

In  1856  Iowa  received  a  grant  for  four  railroads  across  the  state  from 
east  to  west.25  The  discussion  over  this  act  in  Congress  has  already 
been  noted,  as  has  also  the  opposition  of  the  river  towns  to  the  east 
and  west  grants.26     The  Iowa  legislature,  by  an  act  of  July  14,  1856, 

"Cary,  O.,  M.  &  St.  Paul  Road,  151-159. 

«  Ibid.,  96. 

15  Ibid.,  160. 

16 Railroad  Commissioner,  Report,  1897,  114. 

17 Statutes  at  Large,  xiii,  64. 

18Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  805. 

19  Ibid.,  779. 

20Railroad  Commissioner,  Report,  1SS6,  598. 

21  Ibid.,  1897,  147. 

-Statutes  at  Large,  xiv,  87. 

28Cary,  C,  If.  &  St.  Paul  Road,  175-181. 

24  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  Report,  1S97.  229. 

26  "From  Burlington,  on  the  Mississippi  River,  to  a  point  on  the  Missouri  River 
near  the  mouth  of  the  Platte  River ;  from  the  city  of  Davenport,  via  Iowa  City 
and  Fort  Des  Moines,  to  Council  Bluffs ;  from  Lyons  City  northwesterly  to  a 
point  of  intersection  with  the  main  line  of  the  Iowa  Central  Air  Line  Railroad, 
near  Maquoketa,  thence  on  said  main  line,  running  as  near  as  practicable  to  the 
forty-second  parallel  across  the  said  State  to  the  Missouri  River,  from  the  city 
of  Dubuque  to  a  point  on  the  Missouri  River  near  Sioux  City,  with  a  branch 
from  the  mouth  of  the  Tete  Des  Morts  to  the  nearest  point  on  said  road."  Stat- 
utes at  Large,  xi.  9. 

25  Supra,  pp.  53-54,  40. 

(368) 


SANBORN RAILROAD    LAND    GRANTS.  107 

accepted  the  grant  and  gave  the  lands  for  the  road  from  Burlington 
to  the  Missouri  to  the  Burlington  and  Missouri  River  railroad  company; 
from  Davenport  to  Council  Blurt's,  to  the  Mississippi  and  Missouri  rail- 
road company;  from  Lyons  to  the  Missouri  river,  to  the  Iowa  Central 
Air  Line  railroad  company;  and  from  Dubuque  to  Sioux  City,  to  the 
Dubuque  and  Pacific  railroad  company.  Each  company  was  to  con- 
struct seventv-five  miles  within  three  years,  from  December  1,  1856, 
thirty  miles  a  year  for  five  years  thereafter,  and  the  remainder  in  one 
year,  that  is  b}'  December  1,  1S65.  In  case  of  failure  to  carry  out  the 
conditions,  the  state  could  resume  the  grant.-7 

The  first  road,  the  Burlington  and  Missouri  Biver,  was  constructed 
on  time.  It  has  received  under  the  grant  389,989  acres,23  of  which  in 
1880  it  had  sold  283,014  acres  for  $3,430,572. 29  Since  that  time  the  sales 
were  slow,  but  the  lands  were  practically  all  disposed  of  by  1888.  The 
average  price  received  for  the  lands  was  $11.79  an  acre,  and  the  total 
amount  realized  was  $5,829,165,  of  which  $4,870,890  was  above  taxes  and 
expenses.30 

In  1866,  one  hundred  and  thirty  miles  of  the  Mississippi  and  Mis- 
souri river  road  had  been  constructed  and  in  June,  1869,  it  was  finished 
to  the  Missouri  river.31  The  legislature  had  meanwhile,  in  1868,  granted 
the  lands  to  the  Chicago  and  Bock  Island  Bailroad  company  which  had 
purchased  the  Mississippi  and  Missouri  road.  The  company  was  re- 
quired to  build  the  road  to  the  Missouri  within  two  years.32  Up  to  1880 
the  sales  of  land  by  this  road  had  amounted  to  371,854  acres  for 
$2,944,374. 3S  By  1891,  lands  to  the  amount  of  547,173  acres  were  re- 
ported as  sold,34  which  amount  seems  to  have  been  in  excess  of  the 
lands  actually  due  the  company.35  These  lands  were  sold  at  an  aver- 
age of  $8.81  an  acre  and  the  total  amount  received  from  land  sales  to 
1891  was  $5,796,639,  or  an  excess  of  $4,887,260  above  taxes  and  expenses 
of  management.30 

By  an  act  of  March  17,  1S60,  the  grant  to  the  Iowa  Central  Air  Line 
company  was  resumed  bvr  the  legislature,  as  no  part  of  the  line  had 
been  constructed.37     The  grant  was  then  given  to  the  Cedar  Bapids  and 

27 Laws  of  Iowa,  1856,  1.  See  Dey,  Railroad  Legislation  in  Iowa;  in  Iowa  His- 
torical Record,  ix,  547-8. 

28  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  Report,  1897,  226. 
"Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  779. 
30 Iowa  Railroad  Commissioners,  Report,  1888,  174. 
"Poor,  Railway  Manual,  1885,  664. 
.  s-Laws   of  Iowa,   1868,   13. 
83 Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  779. 
"Iowa  Railroad  Commissioners,  Report,  1891,  212. 
35  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  Report,  1897,  226-7. 
88 Iowa  Railroad  Commissioners,  Report,  1891,  212. 
zlLaws  of  Iowa,  1860,  29. 

(369) 


108  BULLETIN   OP  THE   UNIVERSITY  OF  WISCONSIN. 

Missouri  River  Railroad  company  which  was  to  build  the  road  by  Decem- 
ber 1,  1865. 38  By  18G4  the  company  had  built  from  Cedar  Rapids  about 
one  hundred  miles  west,  while  the  Chicago,  Iowa,  and  Nebraska  com- 
pany had  built  from  a  point  on  the  Mississippi,  three  miles  from  Lyons, 
to  Cedar  Rapids.  In  1S64  an  act  was  passed  by  Congress  which  relieved 
the  company  of  the  obligation  to  build  from  Lyons  to  the  line  of  the 
Chicago,  Iowa,  and  Nebraska  road;  allowed  a  change  of  the  route  west 
of  Cedar  Rapids,  and,  if  the  new  route  should  not  pass  through  Onawa, 
required  a  branch  to  be  built  to  that  city;  and  also  required  the  con- 
struction of  a  branch  to  the  line  of  the  Mississippi  and  Missouri.39 

The  provisions  of  this  act  were  not  fully  carried  out,  as  the  connec- 
tion with  the  Mississippi  and  Missouri  was  not  built,  nor  was  the 
branch  to  Onawa,  although  the  line  passed  fifteen  miles  from  that 
city.  The  difference  between  the  road  as  actually  constructed  and  as 
first  located  was  seventy-four  miles.  The  company  claimed  lands  for 
the  length  of  the  original  location  but  this  was  not  allowed.40  Of  the 
lands  patented  for  this  road  the  first  one  hundred  sections  were  given 
to  the  Iowa  Central  Air  Line  company  by  a  decision  of  the  supreme 
court.41  Up  to  1869  the  Cedar  Rapids  company  had  sold  46,049  acres 
for  $220,559.  In  that  year  all  the  remaining  lands  of  the  company  and 
those  which  should  thereafter  be  certified  to  it,  were  sold  to  the  Iowa 
Railroad  Land  company  for  $S00,00O.43  I  have  been  unable  to  find 
anything  as  to  the  disposal  of  the  lands  by  this  company. 

In  1868  the  lands  which  had  been  granted  to  the  Dubuque  and  Pacific 
were  resumed  by  the  state  on  the  ground  of  the  non-fulfillment  by  the 
company  ot  the  conditions  of  the  granting  act.  This  act,  however, 
reserved  to  the  company  the  right  to  all  lands  actually  earned.43  The 
company  had  built  the  road  as  far  as  Iowa  Falls  and  an  agreement 
had  been  made  with  the  Iowa  Falls  and  Sioux  City  company  by 
which  the  latter  was  to  build  the  remainder  of  the  road.44  This 
agreement  was  ratified  by  the  legislature,45  and  the  road  built  to 
Fort  Dodge  the  next  year,  when  it  was  leased  to  the  Illinois  Central, 
which  completed  it  to  Sioux  City.40  In  1S78  the  treasurer  of  the  Du- 
buque and  Sioux  City  company  stated  that  he  was  unable  to  furnish 
information  as  to  the  land  grant  and  said  that  it  had  been  a  constant 

88  Ibid.,  40. 

39 Cedar  Rapids  &  Mo.  R.  Co.  v.  Herring,  110  U.  S.,  27. 

40  Ibid. 

"Cedar  Rapids  &  Mo.  River  R.  Co.  v.  Courtright,  21  Wallace,  310. 

42Iowa  Railroad  Commissioners,  Report,  1878,  197. 

™Laws  of  Iowa,  1868,  29. 

44 Iowa  Railroad  Commissioners,  Report,  1S79,  109. 

«» Laics  of  Iowa.  1868,  164. 

48Iowa  Railroad  Commissioners,  Report,  1S79,  109. 

(370) 


SANBORN — RAILROAD  LAND  GRANTS.  109 

source  of  annoyance  and  loss  to  the  company."  In  1880  it  was  re- 
ported that  the  two  companies  had  sold  314,275  acres  for  $2,098,994.** 
By  1886  all  but  26,448  acres  had  been  disposed  of.  The  average  price 
received  was  $6.85,  while  the  net  income  from  the  lands  was  $3,676,902.*' 

In  1864  a  further  grant  was  made  to  Iowa  for  two  roads,  one  from 
Sioux  City  to  the  northern  boundary  of  the  state  and  the  other  from 
McGregor  west  to  the  Sioux  City  road.60 

The  lands  in  aid  of  a  road  from  Sioux  City  to  the  Minnesota  line  were 
granted  by  the  state  to  the  Sioux  City  and  St.  Paul  Railway  company," 
and  the  grant  for  the  McGregor  Western  accepted  and  held  in  trust  for 
that  company." 

The  Sioux  City  and  St.  Paul  company  built  its  line  from  the  state  line 
to  Le  Mars,  a  distance  of  56  miles.  Meanwhile  the  Dubuque  and  Sioux 
City  company  had  built  its  road  to  Sioux  City,  via  Le  Mars,  so  that 
there  was  a  line  from  that  city  to  Sioux  City  when  the  Sioux  City  and 
St.  Paul  company  reached  it.  An  agreement  was  made  whereby  the 
line  was  to  be  used  by  the  Sioux  City  and  St.  Paul  company  for  its 
through  traffic,  while  doing  no  local  business  between  Le  Mars  and 
Sioux  City.53  The  company  received  certificates  from  the  governor  for 
the  construction  of  50  miles  of  road,  but,  as  the  line  was  to  be  built  in 
10-mile  sections,  the  remaining  6  miles  were  not  certified  and  no  lands 
were  received  by  the  company.54  Suit  was  brought  for  the  lands  ad- 
jacent to  the  last  6  miles  but  the  supreme  court  of  Iowa  decided  that 
the  company  was  only  entitled  to  land  for  completed  sections  of  10 
miles.55 

This  road  crossed  the  line  of  the  Chicago,  Milwaukee,  and  St.  Paul, 
formerly  the  McGregor  Western,  at  Sheldon,  thus  causing  a  conflict 
between  the  lands  granted  the  road.  By  a  decision  of  the  supreme 
court,  lands  within  the  ten  mile  limits  of  one  road  and  the  twenty  mile 

47  Ibid.,  1878,  275. 
^Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  779. 

48  Iowa  Rajlroad  Commissioners,  Report,  18S6,  336. 

50  "From  Sioux  City  in  said  State,  to  the  south  line  of  the  State  of  Minnesota, 
at  such  point  as  the  said  State  of  Iowa  may  select  between  the  Big  Sioux  and 
the  west  fork  of  the  Des  Moines  river ;  also  .  .  .  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the 
McGregor  Western  Railroad  Company,  for  the  purpose  of  aiding  in  the  construc- 
tion of  a  railroad  from  a  point  at  or  near  the  foot  of  Main  street,  South  Mc- 
Gregor, in  said  state,  in  a  westerly  direction,  by  the  most  practicable  route,  on 
or  near  the  forty-third  parallel  of  north  latitude,  until  it  shall  intersect  the  said 
road  running  from  Sioux  City  to  the  Minnesota  State  line,  in  the  county  of 
O'Brien  in  said  state."     Statutes  at  Large,  xiii,  72. 

"Laics  of  Iowa,  1866,  143. 

52  Ibid.,  189. 

83  Senate  Reports,  1st  sess.  49  Cong.,  No.  45. 

54  Ibid. 

65 Sioux  City  and  St.  Paul  R.  Co.  v.  Countryman,  83  Iowa,  172. 

(371) 


110  BULLETIN  OF  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  "WISCONSIN. 

limits  of  the  other  were  given  to  the  former;  lands  within  the  ten 
mile  limits  of  both  roads  were  evenly  divided,  as  were  lands  within 
both  twenty  mile  limits;60  the  general  rule  in  regard  to  conflicting 
limits,  however,  was  that  priority  of  selection  gave  the  right  to  such 
lands.67  Little  further  information  can  be  obtained  concerning  the 
lands.  This  road  has  become  a  part  of  the  Chicago,  St.  Paul,  Minne- 
apolis and  Omaha  system. 

In  1868  the  grant  to  the  McGregor  Western  was  resumed  by  the  state 
and  the  lands  granted  to  the  McGregor  and  Sioux  City  company.58  At 
that  time  it  had  been  constructed  as  far  as  Calmar,  while  in  1870  it 
was  built  to  Algona  and  conveyed  to  the  Chicago,  Milwaukee  and  St. 
Paul  company.  No  further  work  was  done  on  the  road  until  1878,  after 
the  time  for  its  completion  had  elapsed.  In  1876  the  grant  had,  how- 
ever, been  renewed,  but  on  terms  which  the  McGregor  Western  refused 
to  accept.  In  1879  the  lands  were  given  to  the  St.  Paul  company,  which 
in  1879  built  to  the  state  line.50  By  1891  this  company  had  disposed 
of  practically  all  of  the  lands  received  under  the  grant,  some  372,000 
acres,  and  had  received  for  them  $1,601,766. 60 

We  have  still  to  consider  the  Des  Moines  Kiver  grant.  This  was 
originally  a  grant,  made  in  1846,  of  the  alternate  sections  for  ten  miles 
on  each  side  of  the  Des  Moines  River  from  its  mouth  to  the  Eaccoon 
Fork,  to  aid  in  the  improvement  of  the  river.01  In  1862  the  grant  was 
extended  to  include  the  alternate  sections  for  five  miles  on  each  side 
of  the  river  from  the  Eaccoon  Fork  to  the  north  boundary  of  the  state, 
and  permission  was  given  to  apply  a  portion  of  the  lands  to  the  aid  of 
the  Keokuk,  Fort  Des  Moines  and  Minnesota  railroad.62  Under  the 
first  grant  it  was  claimed  that  lands  north  of  Des  Moines03  were  in- 
cluded but  this  was  disallowed.04  It  was  later  decided,  however,  that 
the  odd-numbered  sections  within  five  miles  of  the  river  were  so  far  re- 
served that  they  did  not  pass  with  the  grant  of  1856. 65 

In  185S  the  legislature  of  Iowa  granted  the  Des  Moines  river  lands  to 
the  Keokuk,  Fort  Des  Moines  and  Minnesota  Eailroad  company,  reserv- 
ing those  lauds  which  had  been  previously  convej'ed  to  the  Des  Moines 
Navigation  and  Railroad  company.     Seventy-five  miles  of  the  road  were 

08 Sioux  Gity  &  St.  Paul  R.  Co.  v.  C,  M.  d  St.  P.  R.  Co.,  117  U.  S.,  406. 
"St.  Paul  d  Sioux  City  R.    Co.  v.  Winona  d  St.  Peter  R.  Co.,  112  U.  S.,  720. 
ssLaus  of  Iowa,  1S68,  20. 
69  Cary,  Organisation  and  History  of  the  C,  M.  &  St.  P.  Railroad,  114-13. 

60  Iowa  Eailroad  Commissioners,  Report,  1891,  2S-9.  The  report  of  the  land 
office  shows  only  325,000  acres  patented  for  this  company.     Report,  1S97,  227. 

61  Statutes  at  Large,  ix,  77. 

62  Ibid.,  xii,  543. 

63  The  Racoon  Fork  was  at  Des  Moines. 
"Dubuque  d  P.  R.  Co.  v.  Litchfield.  23  Howard,  66. 
KWolcott  v.  Des  Moines  Co.,  5  Wallace,  681. 

(372) 


SANBORN — RAILROAD  LAND  GRANTS.  Ill 

to  be  completed  within  three  years  and  the  whole  road  by  1868. 66  The 
road  was  built  from  Keokuk  to  Bentonsport  in  1857,  to  Ottumvva  in 
1859  and  to  Des  Moines  in  1S66.  In  1S78  it  was  leased  to  the  Chicago, 
Rock  Island  and  Pacific.^  Any  information  as  to  the  disposition  of  the 
lands  received  by  this  company  cannot  be  obtained.63  The  road  was 
continued  to  Fort  Dodg-e  under  the  name  of  the  Des  Moines  and  Fort 
Dodge  railroad.  Information  as  to  the  lands  of  this  road  is  also  lack- 
ing. 

ALABAMA   AND    MISSISSIPPI. 

An  amendment  to  the  Illinois  Central  act  of  1850  granted  lands  to 
Alabama  and  Mississippi  for  a  railroad  from  Mobile  to  the  mouth  of 
the  Ohio  river.68  This  grant  was  conferred  by  the  legislatures  of  Ala- 
bama and  Mississippi  on  the  Mobile  and  Ohio  company,  which  built  the 
road  by  September,  1859. 70  There  have  been  patented  for  the  company 
1,156,659  acres.71  These  lands  sold  very  slowly  and  in  18S0  the  company 
held  1,162,401  acres,  valued  at  $567,125. 72  From  the  sales  of  its  lands 
up  to  1865  the  company  had  received  $252,237."  The  exact  amount  re- 
ceived since  then  I  have  been  unable  to  determine.  The  yearly  re- 
ceipts have  been  quite  small. 

By  an  act  of  June  3,  1856,  further  grants  were  made  to  Alabama  for 
a  number  of  roads  within  that  state  and  extending  into  the  neighboring 
states.74     The  grant  from  Gunter's  Landing  to  Gadsden  was  conferred 

ceLaics  of  loica,  1858.  195. 

87  Iowa  Railroad  Commissioners,  Report,  1S79,  110. 

6sIbid.,  1878,  4G. 

69"J.hc7  be  it  further  enacted,  That  in  order  to  aid  in  the  continuation  of  said 
Central  Railroad  from  the  mouth  of  the  Ohio  river  to  the  city  of  Mobile,  all  the 
rights,  privileges,  and  liabilities  hereinbefore  conferred  on  the  State  of  Illinois 
shall  be  granted  to  the  States  of  Alabama  and  Mississippi  respectively,  for  the 
purpose  of  aiding  in  the  construction  of  a  railroad  from  said  city  of  Mobile  to  a 
point  near  the  mouth  of  the  Ohio  river,  and  that  public  lands  of  the  United 
States,  to  the  same  extent  in  proportion  to  the  length  of  the  road,  on  the  same 
terms,  limitations  and  restrictions  in  every  respect  shall  be,  and  is  hereby, 
granted  to  said  States  of  Alabama  and  Mississippi  respectively."  Statutes  at 
Large,  ix,  4G7. 

70Poor,  Railway  Manual,  1877-78,  215.  In  1859  the  time  for  the  completion 
of  the  road  was  extended  to  Sept.  20,  1805.     Statutes  at  Large,  xi,  384. 

71  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  Report,  1897,  225. 

72roor,  Railway  Manual,  1881,  425. 

73Rcports  of  Committees,  2nd  sess.  39th  Cong.,  no.  34,  p.  848. 

74  "From  the  Tennessee  River,  at  or  near  Gunter's  Landing,  to  Gadsden,  on 
the  Coosa  River ;  from  Gadsden  to  connect  with  the  Georgia  and  Tennessee  line 
of  railroads,  through  Chattooga,  Wills,  and  Lookout  Valleys  ;  and  from  Elyton 
to  the  Tennessee  River  at  or  near  Beard's  Bluff,  Alabama   .    .    . 

"Section  G.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  a  grant  of  lands  shall  be  made 
to  said  state  to  aid  in  the  construction  of  the  following  railroads,  to-wit :  The 
Memphis  and  Charleston  Railroad,   extending  from   Memphis  on   the   Mississippi 

(373) 


112  BULLETIN    OP    THE    UNIVERSITY    OF    WISCONSIN. 

on  the  Coosa  and  Tennessee  Railroad  company.  This  had  not  been 
built  in  1890  and  was  included  in  the  general  forfeiture  act  of  that 
year. 70 

Under  the  grant  for  a  road  from  Gadsden  to  the  Georgia  line  two 
companies  were  organized,  one  to  construct  the  road  through  the 
Chatooga  valley  and  the  other  through  the  Wills  and  Lookout  val- 
leys. The  latter  company  received  the  grant  from  the  state.76  In  1863 
it  consolidated  with  the  Northeast  and  Southwest  Alabama,  which  had 
received  the  grant  from  Gadsden  to  the  Mississippi  line.  In  1869  the 
time  for  the  construction  of  these  lines  was  extended  to  April  10,  1872, 
and  they  were  completed  during  1871. 77 

The  grant  for  a  road  from  Elyton  to  the  Tennessee  river  was  given 
to  the  Elyton  and  Beard's  Bluff  Railway  company.  No  map  of  the  road 
was  ever  filed  and  no  work  has  been  done  on  it.78 

The  state  refused  to  accept  the  grant  in  aid  of  the  Memphis  and 
Charleston  road  and  the  lands  were  restored  to  market  February  19, 
1858.™ 

The  Mobile  and  Girard  company  built  fifty-four  miles  from  Girard 
toward  Mobile  within  the  time  required  by  the  law,  and  to  Troy,  thirty 
miles  further,  before  the  forfeiture  of  1890. 80  There  had  been  certi- 
fied to  the  company  504,167  acres,  of  which  201.9S5  were  restored  to  the 
public  domain.81 

Of  the  Coosa  and  Alabama  road  (later  the  Selma,  Rome,  and  Dal  ton) 
one  hundred  and  forty-three  miles  were  constructed  on  the  line  of 
definite  location  filed  with  the  secretary  of  the  interior.  Of  these  one 
hundred  miles  were  built  within  the  time  required  by  law.82  No  at- 
tempt was  made  by  the  company  to  build  the  remainder  of  the  line 
as  located,  so  that  the  portion  to  Gadsden  was  forfeited  in  1890. 8S 

The  grant  to  the  North  and  South  Alabama  was  renewed  in  1871  and 

River  in  Tennessee,  to  Stevenson  on  the  Nashville  and  Chattanooga  Railroad  in 
Alabama  ;  the  Girard  and  Mobile  railroad,  from  Girard  to  Mobile,  Alabama ;  the 
Northeast  and  Southwestern  Railroad,  from  near  Gadsden  to  some  point  on  the 
Alabama  and  Mississippi  State  line,  in  the  direction  of  the  Mobile  and  0*nio  Rail- 
road ;  the  Coosa  and  Alabama  Railroad,  from  Selma  to  Gadsden;  the  Central 
Railroad  from  Montgomery  to  some  point  on  the  Alabama  and  Tennessee  Stat* 
line  in  the  direction  to  Nashville,  Tennesse."     Statutes  at  Large,  xi,  17-18. 

75  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  Report,  1891,  39. 

70Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  792. 

77  House  Reports,  1st  sess.  48th  Cong.,  no.  2016. 

78 Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  792. 

79  Ibid.,  792. 

S0Hou$e  Reports,  1st  sess.  51st  Cong.,  no.  1179,  p.  3. 

81  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  Report,  1893,  54. 

82Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  793. 

83  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  Report,  1891,  39. 

84 Statutes  at  Large,  xvi,  580. 

(374) 


SANBORN — RAILROAD    LAND    GRANTS.  113 

the  road  required  to  be  constructed  within  three  years,84  which  was 
done. 

In  1857  a  grant  was  made  for  a  road  "from  the  line  of  Georgia  on 
the  Chattahoochee  river  to  the  city  of  Mobile,  Alabama,"  with  a 
branch  from  Eufaula  to  Montgomery."  No  map  of  location  for  the 
road  was  filed  and  no  portion  of  it  has  been  constructed.89 

I  have  been  able  to  obtain  practically  no  information  as  to  the  dis- 
posal of  the  lands  received  by  the  various  companies  in  Alabama. 

By  an  act  of  August  11,  1S5G,  Mississippi  received  a  grant  of  lands 
for  railroads  "from  Jackson  to  the  line  between  Mississippi  and  Ala- 
bama; from  Tuscaloosa  to  the  Mobile  railroad  within  Mississippi,  and 
from  Brandon  to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,"  and  from  Mobile  to  New  Or- 
leans." 

The  first  road  (now  the  Vicksburg  and  Meridian)  was  completed  on 
time.  Information  as  to  its  land  transactions  is  lacking.  There  have 
been  patented  for  the  use  of  the  road  198,028  acres.83 

For  the  roads  from  Tuscaloosa  to  the  Mobile  road  and  from  Mobile 
to  New  Orleans  no  maps  of  location  were  filed  nor  were  any  lands  cer- 
tified to  the  states  on  account  of  the  grants.  ** 

The  land  grant  road  from  Brandon  to  the  gulf  (known  as  the  Gulf  and 
Ship  Island)  wTas  built  as  far  south  as  Hattiesburg  before  the  forfeiture 
of  1890.  In  that  act  there  was  a  proviso  giving  the  company  one  year  to 
build  the  remainder  of  its  road.  This  wras  not  done  and  the  lands  have 
been  forfeited.  There  have  been  patented  on  account  of  this  grant 
138,478  acres.90 

FLORIDA. 

An  act  of  May  17,  1856,  made  grants  for  various  roads  in  Florida  and 
for  a  road  from  Pensacola  to  Montgomery.81  The  first  grant  was  given 
to  two  companies,  the  Florida,  Atlantic,  and  Gulf  Central  to  build  from 
Jackson  to  Lake  City  and  the  Pensacola  and  Georgia  from  Lake  City  to 
Pensacola.  These  companies  afterward  consolidated  as  the  Florida 
Central  and  Western  Company.     The  line  from  Jacksonville,  fifVy-nine 

85  Statutes  at  Large,  xi,  197. 

80 Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  794. 

"Statutes  at  Large,  xi,  30. 

88  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  Report,  1897,  225. 

"•Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  791. 

90  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  Report,  1897,  225. 

91  "From  St.  Johns  River,  at  Jacksonville,  to  the  waters  of  Escambia  Bay,  at  or 
near  Pensacola ;  and  from  Amelia  Island,  on  the  Atlantic,  to  the  waters  of  Tampa 
Bay,  with  a  branch  to  Cedar  Key,  on  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  ;  and  also  a  railroad 
from  Pensacola  to  the  State  line  of  Alabama,  in  the  direction  of  Montgomery" 
[line  continued  to  Montgomery  by  section  six].     Statutes  at  Large,  xi,  15. 

(375) 


114  BULLETIN    OF    THE    UNIVERSITY    OF    WISCONSIN. 

ruiles,  and  from  Lake  City  to  Quincy,  one  hundred  and  thirty  miles,  was 
completed  on  time.  The  remaining-  one  hundred  and  eighty-one  miles 
were  completed  much  later  bjr  the  Pensacola  and  Atlantic  company." 
There  have  been  certified  to  the  state  under  this  grant  1,308,541  acres.91 

Of  the  line  from  Amelia  Island  (Fernandina)  to  Tampa,  the  line 
from  Fernandina  to  Waldo,  the  junction  (one  hundred  and  eighty-four 
miles),  and  the  branch  from  Waldo  to  Cedar  Keys,  seventy-one  miles, 
were  constructed  on  time."4  The  remainder  of  the  road  was  built  to 
Waldo  in  1884.'*  The  company  has  received  430,504  acres  and  it  is  es- 
timated that  1,000,000  acres  remain  unpatented.08 

The  road  from  Pensacola  to  the  Alabama  line  was  built  in  1S59  and 
destroyed  during  the  war.  It  was  rebuilt  in  1870.97  There  have  been 
certified  to  Florida  on  account  of  this  road  166,691  acres.98 

LOUISIANA. 

Louisiana  received  a  grant  of  land  for  two  roads  by  an  act  of  June  3, 
1856. 99  The  road  from  the  Texas  line  to  Shreveport,  twenty  miles,  and 
from  the  Mississippi  to  Monroe,  seventy-four  miles,  was  constructed 
within  the  time  required.10"  The  section  from  Shreveport  to  Monroe 
was  built  in  1884. 101  The  state  has  received  from  the  road  462,465  acres.1 

Some  eig'hty  miles  of  the  road  from  New  Orleans  to  the  Texas  line 
were  built  before  the  war.  During  the  war  the  road  was  in  the  posses- 
sion of  the  Federal  Government.2  In  1S70  the  grant  was  declared  for- 
feited,3 and  in  1888,  719,189  acres  which  had  been  patented  for  the  road 
were  reconveyed  to  the  government.4 

The  other  grant,  from  New  Orleans  to  the  Mississippi  line,  was  not 
accepted  by  the  state  and  the  lands  were  restored  to  market  July  27, 
1857.5 

S2House  Reports,  1st  sess.  49th  Cong.,  no.  2437. 

93  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  Report,  1897,  225. 

aiHouse  Reports,  1st  sess.  49th  Cong.,  no.  2437. 

85 Poor,  Railway  Manual,  1S8S,  654. 

90  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  Report,  1897,  223,  225. 

"Poor,  Railway  Manual,  1884,  510. 

98  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  Report,  1897,  225. 

09  "From  the  Texas  line,  in  the  State  of  Louisiana,  west  of  the  town  of  Green- 
wood ;  via  Greenwood,  Shreveport,  and  Monroe  to  a  point  on  the  Mississippi  river, 
opposite  Vicksburg ;  and  from  New  Orleans  by  Opelousas  to  the  State  line  of 
Texas ;  and  from  New  Orleans  to  the  State  line,  in  the  direction  to  [sicl  Jackson, 
Mississippi."     Statutes  at  Large,  xi,  18. 

""Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  796. 

101Poor,  Railway  Manual,  1885,  476. 

1  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  Report,  1897,  226. 

2 Poor,  Railway  Manual,  18S5,  474. 

3  Statutes  at  Large,  xvi,  277. 

4  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  Report,  1897,  226-7. 
5 Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  79G. 

(376) 


SANEORN — RAILROAD    LAND    GRANTS.  115 


MISSOURI. 

The  second  land  grant  act  which  passed  Congress  was  one  which 
granted  lands  to  .Missouri  for  roads  from  Hannibal  to  St.  Joseph  and 
from  St.  Louis  to  the  western  boundary  of  the  state."  This  passed  the 
32nd  Congress  and  was  signed  June  10,  1852.  The  lands  were  granted 
by  the  Missouri  legislature  to  the  Hannibal  and  St.  Joseph  and  the  Pa- 
cific Kailroad  companies  respectively.  It  was  provided  that  lands  re- 
maining unsold  ten  years  after  the  completion  of  the  roads  should  be 
offered  at  public  sale  annually  until  disposed  of.7 

The  road  from  Hannibal  to  St.  Joseph  was  opened  February  29,  1S59,8 
well  within  The  time  required.  There  have  been  patented  to  the  state 
under  this  grant  611,323  acres.9  Of  these  the  company  had  sold  in 
1880,  512,998  acres  for  $4,802,448,  an  average  of  $9,55  an  acre.10  In  1888 
the  receipts  had  amounted  to  $2,337,317."  Detailed  reports  of  land 
sales  since  18S0  are  not  obtainable. 

In  addition  to  the  land  grant  the  state  had  given  the  Pacific  com- 
pany $4,500,000  in  bonds.  In  1860  the  road  had  been  constructed  to 
Eolla,  one  hundred  and  thirteen  miles.  Then  the  company  failed  to 
pay  the  interest  on  the  bonds  which  it  had  received,  and  in  1S66  the 
road  was  sold  under  foreclosure  for  $1,300,000.  The  new  company  failed 
to  build  the  road  and  in  1868  it  was  again  sold,  this  time  for 
$300,000.  The  new  company  had  built  the  line  almost  to  the  state  line 
by  1870  when  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  company  purchased  the  road,12 
and  built  to  Vinita,  Indian  Territory,  during  the  next  year.13  Congress 
had  meanwhile,  by  an  act  of  June  5,  1862,  extended  the  time  for  the 
completion  of  the  road  to  June  10,  1872. 14  In  1866  the  Atlantic  and  Pa- 
cific company  had  been  incorporated  and  given  a  grant  of  lands  for  a 
road  from  Springfield,  Missouri,  to  the  western  boundary  of  the  state." 
The  company  was  allowed  to  purchase  the  Pacific  road  and  thus  pre- 
vent a  duplication  of  the  grant,  while  the  amount  of  the  previous  grant 
was  deducted  from  the  new  grant.  The  grant  as  adjusted  for  the  Pa- 
cific road  thus  extended  from  St.  Louis  to  Springfield,  two  hundred  and 
forty  miles. 

Under  the  grant  the  government  has  certified  to  the  state  1,161,284 

"Statutes  at  Large,  x,  8. 

7Laics  of  Missouri,  1852,  10,  15. 

8  Poor,  Railway  Manual,  1879,  830. 

8  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  Report,  1897,  226. 

"Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  779. 

11  Railroad  Commissioner,  Report,  1888,  264. 

"See  infra,  p.  124. 

"Poor,  Railway  Manual,  1884,  821. 

"Statutes  at  .'.ari/e,  xii,  422. 

15  Ibid.,  xiv,  292. 

(377) 


116  BULLETIN    OP    THE    UNIVERSITY    OF    "WISCONSIN. 

acres.10  In  18S0  the  company  had  sold  553,873  acres,  while  its  receipts 
had  amounted  to  $1,461,S55,  making  an  average  of  $2.53  an  acre."  In 
1S97  the  companj''  then  owning  the  land  grant  (the  St.  Louis  and  San 
Francisco)  reported  that  there  had  been  sold  1,072,803  acres.  The 
amount  received  for  the  lands  was  not  given  but  the  net  profit  during 
the  previous  year  had  been  $25,310. 18 

In  1S53  a  grant  was  made  to  Missouri  and  Arkansas  for  a  railroad 
from  a  point  opposite  the  mouth  of  the  Ohio,  via  Little  Rock,  to  Ful- 
ton, with  branches  to  the  Mississippi  and  Fort  Smith.18  By  an  act  of 
July  28,  1866,  the  grant  was  revived  and  increased,  the  time  for  the 
completion  of  the  road  being  fixed  at  July  28,  1876. 2i  The  main  line 
was  constructed  as  the  Cairo  and  Fulton  (now  the  St.  Louis,  Iron 
Mountain,  and  Southern)  by  1874. -1  On  account  of  this  grant  the  states 
of  Missouri  and  Arkansas  have  received  1,388,444  acres.22  of  which  there 
had  been  sold  by  1SS0,  264,802  acres  for  $1,129,873,  an  average  of  $4.27 
per  acre.23  By  1S90,  8S2,578  acres  had  been  sold  for  $2,349,521,  with 
$542,420  due  on  contracts,21  and  in  1S97  the  company  reported  that  it 
had  sold  or  lost  by  contest,  779,639  acres,  for  which  $3,075,145  had  been 
received,  with  $163,742  due  on  time  sales.  During  1896  the  receipts 
from  the  land  department  were  $65,906  and  the  expenses  $53,005.  The 
Missouri  lands  are  now  held  at  an  average  of  $3  an  acre  and  those  in 
Arkansas  at  an  average  of  $2.65. 25 

The  branch  from  Little  Rock  to  Fort  Smith  was  completed  in  1876. 23 
To  this  company  1,052, 0S2  acres  have  been  patented.27  The  report  of 
this  company  in  1S90  showed  that  517,591  acres  of  these  lands  had  been 
sold  for  $1,544,642,  with  $395,900  due  on  contracts.23  But  in  1897  the 
companj'  reported  the  sale  and  loss  by  contest  of  only  517,642  acres,  but 
receipts  amounting  to  $2,247,907,  with  $180,907  outstanding  on  con- 
tracts. It  is  evident  that  both  of  these  reports  cannot  be  right.  Dur- 
ing the  past  year  the  receipts  were  reported  as  being  $23,14S,  with  the 
expenses,  $24,367. 2S 

16  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  Report,  1897,  226. 

17 Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  779. 

15 Railroad  Commissioner,  Report,  1897,  142. 

19  Statutes  at  Large,  x,  155. 

20  Ibid.,  xiv,  33S. 

21  Poor,  Railway  Manual,  1875-6,  613. 

22  Commissinoer  of  the  General  Land  Office,  Report,  1897,  226. 
23Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  783. 

"Railroad  Commissioner,  Report,  1891,  193. 

25  Ibid.,  1897,  145. 

28 Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  796-7. 

27  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  Report,  1S97,  226. 

28 Railroad  Commissioner,  Report,  1S90,  180. 

29  Ibid.,  1897,  145. 

(378) 


SANBORN RAILROAD    LAND    GRANTS.  117 

The  branch  to  the  Mississippi  was  located  to  a  point  opposite  Mem- 
phis and  was  finished  in  1871. 30  Under  this  grant  there  have  been 
patented  184,657  acres,31  but  as  the  records  of  the  company  have  nearly 
all  been  destroyed,  little  can  be  learned  concerning  the  disposal  of 
these  lands.32 

July  4,  1856,  a  grant  was  made  to  Arkansas  and  Missouri  for  a  road 
from  Pilot  Knob  to  Helena. 3S  The  St.  Louis,  Iron  Mountain,  and  South- 
ern company  built  the  road  from  Pilot  Knob  to  Poplar  Bluff,  Missouri, 
where  it  joined  the  line  of  the  Cairo  and  Fulton.  No  further  work 
was  done  on  the  line  and  the  road  as  constructed  was  not  according 
to  the  map  filed  by  the  company.  No  particular  effort  was  made  to 
claim  the  grant  and  in  1884  it  was  repealed.34 

KANSAS. 

The  first  grant  to  Kansas  was  that  of  March  3,  1863,  for  various  rail- 
roads in  that  state.30  The  first  of  these  grants  was  given  to  the  Leav- 
enworth, Lawrence,  and  Galveston  company  and  the  second  to  the  At- 
chison, Topeka,  and  Santa  Fe.  Of  the  former  only  the  portion  from 
Lawrence  to  the  southern  boundary  of  the  state  was  built,39  and  in 
1876  the  unearned  lands  were  forfeited.37  There  have  been  patented 
for  the  earned  portion  of  the  grant  249,446  acres  but  from  this  must 
be  deducted  186,936  acres  lying  within  the  Osage  reservation,  leaving 
only  63,510  acres  for  the  company.38  Yet  in  1880  the  company  was  re- 
ported as  having  sold  199,759  acres  for  $597,166. 39  How  this  excess  has 
been  accounted  for  I  am  as  yet  unable  to  ascertain. 

For  the  construction  of  the  main  line  of  the  other  road  the  Santa  Fe 
company  has  received  2,944,788  acres.40    In  1876  it  offered  its  lands  at 

30roor,  Railway  Manual,  1877-8,  795. 

31  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  Report,  1897,  226. 

32  Railroad  Commissioner,  Report,  1895,  142. 

33  Statutes  at  Large,  xiv,  83. 

34  Ibid.,  xxiii,  61. 

35"First,  of  a  railroad  and  telegraph  from  the  city  of  Leavenworth  by  way  of 
the  town  of  Lawrence,  and  via  the  Ohio  City  crossing  of  the  Osage  River,  to  the 
Southern  line  of  the  State,  in  the  direction  of  Galveston  bay  in  Texas,  with  a 
branch  from  Lawrence  by  the  valley  of  the  Wakarusa  River,  to  the  point  on  the 
Atchison,  Topeka,  and  Santa  Fe  Railroad  where  said  road  intersects  the  Neosho 
River.  Second,  of  a  railroad  from  the  city  of  Atchison,  via  Topeka,  the  capital 
of  said  State,  to  the  Western  line  of  the  State,  in  the  direction  of  Fort  Union  and 
and  Santa  F6,  New  Mexico,  with  a  branch  from  where  this  last-named  road 
crosses  the  Neosho,  down  said  Neosho  valley  to  the  point  where  the  said  first- 
named  road  enters  the  said  Neosho  valley."     Statutes  at  Large,  xii,  772. 

ssHouse  Reports,  1st  sess.  48th  Cong.,  no.  1113,  p.  5. 

37  Statutes  at  Large,  xix,  101. 

33  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  Report,  1897,  229. 

"Donaldson,  rublic  Domain,  779. 

40  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  Report,  1897,  230. 

(379) 


118  BULLETIN    OF    THE    UNIVERSITY    OF    WISCONSIN. 

prices  ranging  from  $1.75  to  $9  an  acre.41  Up  to  18S0  it  had  sold 
993,675  acres  and  had  received  for  them  $5,802,985. "  In  1888  the  com- 
pany reported  1,513,724  acres  sold  and  practically  all  the  rest  contracted 
for.  The  receipts  from  the  lands  had  been  $11,601,636,  the  expenses 
$1,644,603,  and  the  taxes  $1,175,724,  leaving  a  net  profit  of  $7,781,309.  *» 

An  act  of  July  1,  1804,  extended  the  branch  road  from  Emporia  north 
to  a  point  near  Fort  Riley.44  By  an  act  of  July  26,  1S66,  a  grant  was 
made  for  a  line  from  Fort  Riley  down  the  valley  of  the  Neosho  to  the 
southern  line  of  the  state,45  thus  duplicating  the  previous  grants.  On 
March  9,  1866,  the  Atchison,  Topeka,  and  Santa  Fe  company  made  an 
agreement  with  the  southern  branch  of  the  Union  Pacific  (afterward 
the  Missouri,  Kansas,  and  Texas)  by  which  the  latter  assumed  all  the 
obligations  in  regard  to  the  building  of  the  Neosho  valley  branch.  In 
view  of  this  agreement  it  was  considered  that  the  act  of  1866  was  an 
extension  of  the  previous  grants  and  the  Missouri,  Kansas,  and  Texas 
received  the  grant.40  The  state  has  received  974,017  acres  on  behalf 
of  the  company,  but  of  these  270,970  acres  must  be  deducted  as  part  of 
the  Osage  Indian  reservation.47  In  1880  the  sales  had  amounted  to 
435,554  acres  and  the  receipts  to  $1,604,014.4S  In  1886  there  had  been 
received  from  sales  of  lands  $2,847,803. 49 

By  an  act  of  July  23,  1866,  a  grant  was  made  to  Kansas  in  aid  of  the 
St.  Joseph  and  Denver  City  Railroad  compam~,  which  was  to  build  from 
a  point  opposite  St.  Joseph,  Missouri,  via  Maryville  to  the  Union  Pacific 
railroad.50  The  road  as  constructed  connected  with  the  Burlington 
and  Missouri  River  railroad  but  not  with  the  Union  Pacific.  It  was, 
however,  decided  that  the  company  had  complied  with  the  law  in  so 
building,  and  it  received  the  grant.51  Under  the  act  462,733  acres  have 
been  patented  to  the  company52  but  no  information  can  be  obtained 
as  to  the  disposition  of  the  lands. 

The  Kansas  and  Neosho  Valley  company  received  a  grant  by  an  act 
of  July  25,  1S66,  for  a  road  from  Kansas  City  through  the  eastern  part 
of  the  state.53     The  road  was  to  be  completed  within  ten  years  and 

^How  and  Where  to  Get  a  Living,  Boston,  1S76,  26-7. 

4-Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  779. 

"Kansas  Railroad  Commissioners,  Gth  Annual  Report,  222. 

"Statutes  at  Large,  xiii,  339. 

45  Ibid.,  xiv.  289. 

*a  Kansas  City,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Attorney  General,  118  U.  S.,  9S2. 

47  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  Report,  1897,  230-31. 

48 Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  779. 

49 Railroad  Commisssioner.  Report,  18S6,  611. 

60 Statutes  at  Large,  xiv,  210. 

6iran  Wyck  v.  Knevals,  106  U.  S..  360. 

62  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  Report,  1S97,  230. 

"Statutes  at  Large,  xiv,  236. 

(380) 


SANBORN — RAILROAD  LAND  GRANTS.  119 

was  built  to  the  state  line  in  1870."  But  in  1877  the  grant  was  re- 
pealed," at  the  request  of  the  company  on  account  of  the  hostility  of 
the  settlers  along  the  road.6*  The  lands  were  surrendered  and  restored 
to  entry  under  the  homestead  law." 


CORPORATIONS. 

The  act  incorporating  the  Union  Pacific  Eailroad  company,  approved 
July  1,  1862,  provided  for  a  line  from  a  point  on  the  100th  meridian  to 
San  Francisco."  From  the  eastern  terminus  four  branches  were  pro- 
vided, to  the  eastern  boundary  of  the  state  of  Iowa,  to  Sioux  City,  to 
the  mouth  of  the  Kansas  river,  and  to  St.  Joseph.  A  grant  of  five  sec- 
tions of  land  a  mile  was  made.  In  1S64  the  grant  was  increased  to  ten 
sections  per  mile.  The  Central  Pacific  was  to  meet  the  Union  Pacific 
at  any  point  east  of  California  but  was  to  receive  lands  for  only  one 
hundred  and  fifty  miles  of  that  distance.  The  Kansas  City  branch 
could  connect  with  the  main  line  at  any  point  west  of  the  eastern 
terminus  but  would  receive  no  more  lands  than  if  the  road  had  been 
built  as  originally  provided  for.  The  Union  Pacific  company  was  re- 
leased from  the  obligation  to  construct  the  Sioux  City  branch  and  an 
extension  of  the  Burlington  and  Missouri  river  was  provided  for."  In 
1866  the  eastern  terminus  was  changed  to  Omaha.8" 

The  point  of  meeting  of  the  Union  and  Central  Pacific  roads  was  in- 
definite and  so  a  race  ensued  to  prolong  each  road  as  far  as  possible. 
The  two  roads  met  at  Promontory  Point  and  their  completion  was  cele- 
brated May  10,  1869. 61    A  joint  resolution  of  the  same  year  fixed  the 

"Poor,  Railway  Manual,  1875-6,  732. 

85  Statutes  at  Large,  xix,  404. 

"Record,  2nd  sess.  44th  Cong.,  1510. 

87  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  Report,  1878,  458. 

88 "The  line  of  said  railroad  and  telegraph  shall  commence  at  a  point  on  the 
one  hundredth  meridian  of  longitude  west  from  Greenwich,  between  the  south 
margin  of  the  valley  of  the  Republican  River  and  the  north  margin  of  the  valley 
of  the  Platte  River,  in  the  Territory  of  Nebraska  at  a  point  to  be  fixed  by  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  after  actual  surveys ;  thence  running  westerly 
upon  the  most  direct,  central,  and  practicable  route,  through  the  territories  of 
the  United  States,  to  the  western  boundary  of  the  Territory  of  Nevada,  there 
to  meet  and  connect  with  the  line  of  the  Central  Pacific  Railroad  company  of 
California  .    .    . 

"...  The  Central  Pacific  Railroad  company  of  California,  a  corporation 
existing  under  the  laws  of  the  State  of  California,  are  [sic]  hereby  authorized  to 
construct  a  railroad  and  telegraph  line  from  the  Pacific  coast,  at  or  near  San 
Francisco,  or  the  navigable  waters  of  the  Sacramento  River,  to  the  eastern 
boundary  of  California."     Statutes  at  Large,  xii,  493-4. 

89  Ibid.,  xiii,  356. 

•°  Ibid.,  xiv,  79. 

"Davis,  Union  Pacific  Railway,  152. 

9  (381) 


120  BULLETIN    OF    THE    UNIVERSITY    OP    WISCONSIN. 

junction  at  or  near  Ogden."  The  Union  Pacific  has  received  6,806,497 
acres  under  the  act  of  1864  and  it  is  estimated  that  517,286  acres  are  still 
due  it.63  In  1875  it  offered  its  lands  for  from  $2  to  $10  an  acre.64  Up  to 
1880  the  company  had  sold  1,568,438  acres  for  $6,916,811,  an  average  of 
$4.41  an  acre.  These  sales  had  been  made  in  tracts  averaging  about  100 
acres  to  each  purchaser.05 

After  1880  the  report  of  the  Union  Pacific  lands  sales  includes  the  Kan- 
sas Pacific  and  Denver  Pacific  grants.  In  1886  the  company  had  received 
3,856,835  acres  and  sold  12,260,163  acres  for  $21,667,734,  with  $13,986,939 
outstanding.  The  sales  had  been  at  an  average  of  $2.54  for  the  Union 
Pacific,  $3.61  for  the  Kansas  Pacific  and  $4.37  for  the  Denver  Pacific. M 
Up  to  1897,  10,380,066  acres  had  been  patented  to  the  company,  while 
it  had  sold  14,2S7,517  acres  for  $38,602,141,  with  $5,917,843  still  due. 
These  sales  were  at  an  average  of  $2.49  for  the  Union  Pacific,  $4.21  for 
the  Kansas  Pacific  and  $4.21  for  the  Denver  Pacific.  The  land  grant 
department  of  the  company  is  now  operated  at  a  loss,  the  expenses  for 
the  year  1897  exceeding  the  receipts  by  $65,241.  On  the  Union  Pacific 
proper  there  was  a  surplus  of  $21,553,  but  this  was  more  than  overcome 
by  the  deficits  of  the  other  divisions.  The  company  now  asks  an  aver- 
age of  65  cents  for  its  Union  Pacific  lands  and  $2.61  for  its  Kansas  and 
Denver  lands." 

In  1897  the  secretary  of  the  interior  directed  the  commissioner  of 
the  land  office  to  suspend  the  issuance  of  patents  to  the  bond-aided 
railroads  for  lands  not  actually  sold  to  bona  fide  purchasers  before 
these  companies  defaulted  on  their  indebtedness  to  the  government. 
The  secretary  fixed  the  date  of  such  default  at  November  1,  1895,  for 
the  Kansas  Pacific  and  January  1,  1897,  for  the  Union  Pacific.68 

The  Central  Pacific,  as  related,  met  the  Union  Pacific  at  Promontory 
Point  in  1869.  On  account  of  the  road,  as  patented,  the  company  has 
received  2,648,433  acres,  with  2,5S0,723  unpatented.68  In  1880  it  had  sold 
295,886  acres  for  $1,114,999,  an  average  of  $3.77  an  acre.70  The  company 
consolidated  with  the  Western  Pacific,  and  California  and  Oregon,  both 
land-grant  roads.  Up  to  1886  of  the  lands  of  these  roads  1,891,571  acres 
had  been  sold  for  $7,117,886,"  and  to  1897,  3,144,336  acres  for  $10,189,635. 

92 Statutes  at  Large,  xvl,  56. 

63  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  Report,  1S97,  230,  224. 

"Guide  to  the  Union  Pacific  Railroad  Lands,  Omaha,  1875,  p.  26. 

"Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  916-17. 

66 Railroad  Commissioner,  Report,  1886,  562. 

67  Ibid.,  1897,  75. 

68  Ibid.,  74. 

69  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  Report,  1897,  230,  224. 
"Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  920. 

"Railroad  Commissioner,  Report,  1886,  581. 

(382) 


SANBORN — RAILROAD    LAND    GRANTS.  121 

with  $825,876  outstanding.  The  average  price  now  asked  is  $3  an  acre.'1 
As  in  the  case  of  the  Union  Pacific,  in  accordance  with  the  order  of 
the  secretary  of  the  interior  in  1897,  the  issuance  of  patents  for  this 
road  has  been  suspended.  The  date  of  default  on  the  indebtedness  has- 
been  fixed  at  January  1,  1896,  for  the  Central  Pacific  and  January  1, 
1897,  for  the  Western  Pacific.73 

The  Western  Pacific  built  that  portion  of  the  road  west  from  Sacra- 
mento. Before  consolidating  with  the  Central  Pacific  it  received 
424,727  acres,  all  of  which  it  sold  before  consolidation.74 

The  California  and  Oregon  Railroad  company  was  to  build  from  the 
Central  Pacific  to  the  Oregon  line.  By  an  extension  of  time  it  had  un- 
til July  1,  18S0,  to  complete  the  road.  The  portion  from  the  Central 
railroad  to  Redding  was  built  on  time,75  and  the  road  finished  to  the 
state  line  during  1886. 76  Up  to  1880  the  company  had  received  1,338,039 
acres  and  sold  366,622  acres  for  $2,970,365,  an  average  of  $8.95  an  acre." 
There  have  been  patented  on  account  of  the  road  2,968,698  acres.73 

The  Kansas  Pacific,  having  the  right  to  join  the  Union  Pacific  at  any 
point  it  wished,  west  of  the  one-hundredth  meridian,  built  to  Den- 
ver and  then  north,  joining  the  Union  Pacific  at  Cheyenne.78  In  1880 
the  company  had  received  828,830  acres  and  sold  1,291,454  acres  for 
$4,419,960,  an  average  of  $3.42  an  acre.80  The  total  number  of  acres 
patented  on  account  of  the  grant  is  3,170,184  acres  and  4,120,901  acres 
have  been  disposed  of  for  $13,4S7,437,  with  $2,851,567  outstanding  on 
time  sales.  No  more  lands  will  be  patented  to  the  company  except 
those  sold  to  actual  purchasers  before  November  1,  1895. n 

The  Denver  Pacific  received  the  grant  for  that  portion  of  the  road  be- 
tween Denver  and  Cheyenne.  By  1880,  49,811  acres  had  been  patented 
to  the  company  and  160,731  acres  sold  for  $731,881,  an  average  of  $4.44 
an  acre.82  In  1897  there  had  been  403,256  acres  patented  and  582,722 
sold,  the  receipts  amounting  to  $2,219,799,  with  $439,114  outstanding.8* 

The  extension  of  the  Hannibal  and  St.  Joseph  was  known  as  the 
Central  Branch  of  the  Union  Pacific.  This  received  a  grant  for  100 
miles  of  road  of  which  there  had  been  patented  up  to  1880,  187,608  acres. 

"Ibid.,   1897,   86. 
73  Ibid. 

74 Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  920. 
"Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  806. 
'"Poor,  Railway  Manual,  1888,  937. 
"Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  920. 
"Railroad  Commissioner,  Report,  1897,  86. 
"Davis,  Union  Pacific  Railway,  lOSn. 
80  Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  918. 
"Railroad  Commissioner,  Report,  1897,  75,  74. 
^Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  919. 
83  Railroad  Commissioner,  Report,  1897,  75. 

(383) 


122  BULLETIN    OP    THE    UNIVERSITY    OF    WISCONSIN. 

The  company  had  sold  about  170,000  acres  on  an  average  of  $5  an  acre.8* 
In  1S97  there  had  been  patented  to  the  company  219,531  acres.  No  re- 
port was  made  on  the  amount  sold  or  the  price  obtained  for  its  lands. 
During  the  previous  year  the  receipts  were  $676  and  the  expenses  $51. 
The  secretary  of  the  interior  has  suspended  the  issuance  of  patents 
except  for  lands  sold  to  bona  fide  purchasers  before  the  default  of  the 
company  on  its  indebtedness  to  the  government,  January  1,  1896. M 

The  branch  from  Sioux  City  was  built  by  the  Sioux  City  and  Pacific 
company  in  1869.  The  company  received  41,31S  acres  which  it  sold 
April  15,  1875,  to  the  Missouri  Valley  Land  company  for  $200,000. 8S 

Under  the  act  of  July  25,  1866, 8I  that  portion  of  the  line  from  the 
Central  Pacific  to  Portland  was  to  be  disposed  of  by  the  legislature 
of  that  state.  This  conferred  the  grant  upon  the  Oregon  Central 
company  which  built  from  Portland  to  Roseburg,  one  hundred  and 
ninety-seven  miles,  on  time.88  The  remainder  of  the  road  was  com- 
pleted in  December,  1887. 89  An  act  of  January  31,  1885,  forfeited  the 
lands  opposite  to  all  portions  of  the  road  not  then  completed,  i.  e.,  from 
Roseburg  to  the  state  line.90  The  road  has  received  2,287,131  acres  and 
it  is  estimated  that  227,992  acres  remain  unpatented."  Up  to  1880  it 
had  sold  82,072  acres  for  $175,650. 92  By  1S86  237,773  acres  had  been  sold 
for  $384,389,  with  $385,647  due  on  time  sales.93  In  1S97  the  sales  had 
amounted  to  $382,443  aeres  for  $1,020,329,  with  $775,S81  outstanding. 
During  the  previous  year  the  receipts  had  amounted  to  $33,724,  and  the 
expenses  $60,012.    The  average  price  now  asked  for  the  lands  is  $3.00.  "* 

The  amendatory  act  of  1864  had  also  provided  for  an  extension  of  the 
Burlington  and  Missouri  River  road  through  Nebraska  to  connect 
with  the  Union  Pacific  not  further  west  than  the  100th  meridian.  In 
1870  the  point  of  connection  with  the  Union  Pacific  was  changed  to 
at  or  near  Fort  Kearney.95  The  road  was  opened  for~traffic  September 
2,  1872. M  There  have  been  received  on  account  of  the  grant  2,374,090 
acres.    By  December  31,  1879,  there  had  been  sold  1,574,392  acres  for 

84  Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  921. 

85  Railroad  Commissioner,  Report,  1897,  97. 
••Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  922,  778. 
"Statutes  at  Large,  xiv,  239. 

88  Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  807. 

89  Poor,  Railway  Manual,  1888,  914. 
'^Statutes  at  Large,  xxiil,  296. 

91  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  Report,  1897,  232,  223. 

"Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  779. 

93 Railroad  Commissioner,  Report,  1886,  596. 

94  Ibid.,  1897,  137. 

"Statutes  at  Large,  xvi,  118. 

96  Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  922. 

97  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  Report,  1897,  231. 

(384) 


SANBORN — RAILROAD  LAND  GRANTS.  123 

$8,556,7S2.M  In  1880  the  road  consolidated  with  the  Burlington  and  Mis- 
souri River  company  as  the  Chicago,  Burlington,  and  Quincy.  In  1886 
the  new  company  had  disposed  of  2,673,345  acres  under  both  grants  for 
$15,725,314. "»  In  1897  there  had  been  sold  2,374,501  acres,  the  receipts 
amounting  to  $11,201,463,  with  $305,674  outstanding  on  time  sales.  Dur- 
ing the  previous  year  the  receipts  were  $75,035,  and  the  expenses  $29,136. 
The  remaining  lands  are  held  at  an  average  of  $4.00  an  acre.100 

July  13,  1866,  a  grant  was  made  to  the  Placerville  and  Sacramento 
Valley  railroad  company  for  a  road  from  Folsom  to  Placerville,  Cali- 
fornia.101 This  grant  was  forfeited  in  1874, a  and  no  lands  have  been 
patented  on  account  of  it. 

A  grant  for  a  road  from  Stockton  to  Copperopolis,  California,  which 
was  made  by  an  act  of  March  2,  1867,2  was  also  forfeited  in  1874.s  No 
lands  have  been  patented  to  this  road. 

The  grant  for  a  road  to  the  Pacific  by  the  northern  route  was  made 
July  2,  1864,  to  the  Northern  Pacific  Railroad  company,  which  was  to 
build  from  a  point  on  Lake  Superior  to  a  point  on  Puget's  Sound,  with 
a  branch  to  Portland,  via  the  valley  of  the  Columbia.  The  grant 
amounted  to  ten  sections  per  mile  in  the  states  and  twenty  sections 
in  the  territories,  and  the  road  was  to  be  completed  by  July  4,  1876.' 
In  1866  the  time  for  building  the  road  was  extended  two  years,8  and 
in  186S  the  original  act  was  amended  so  as  to  fix  the  time  at  July  4, 
1877."  It  was,  however,  held  that  the  effect  of  these  provisions  was  to 
make  the  final  limit  July  4,  1879,  the  act  of  1866  being  considered  as 
amendatory  of  the  act  of  1868.7  Within  the  time  required  there  were 
constructed  531  miles  of  road,  leaving  1,739  miles  to  be  built.8  In  1883 
the  through  line  from  Ashland  to  Portland  was  opened,9  but  as  the 
branch  between  Wallula  and  Portland  had  been  built  by  another  com- 
pany it  was  forfeited  by  the  act  of  1890. 10 

Up  to  1880  there  had  been  patented  to  the  company  746,509  acres, 
while  it  had  sold  2,593,983  acres  for  $9,089,453. u     By  1886  11,459,836  acres 

Toor,  Railway  Manual,  1880,  924. 
■"•Railroad  Commissioner,  Report,  1886,  603. 
160  Ibid.,  1897,  111. 
101  Statutes  at  Large,  xiv,  94. 

1  Ibid.,  xviii,  29. 

2  Statutes  at  Large,  xiv,  548. 

3  Ibid.,  xviii,  72. 
♦Ibid.,  xiii,  365. 

6  Ibid.,  xiv,  355. 
•Ibid.,  xv,  255. 

7  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office.  Report,  1879,  109-111. 
'House  Reports,  1st  sess.  48th  Cong.,  no.  1256,  p.  3. 

•Railroad  Commissioner,  Report,  1897,  131. 

10  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  Report,  1891,  39. 

"Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  779. 

(385) 


124  BULLETIN    OF    THE    UNIVERSITY    OF    WISCONSIN. 

had  been  patented  and  5,830,871  sold  for  $20,856,000,  with  $3,676,204  due 
on  time  sales.12  In  1S95  8,466,250  acres  had  been  sold  by  the  company  for 
$34,273,375,  with  $4,280,438  still  due.  The  average  price  had  been  $3.92 
an  acre.13  In  the  balance  sheet  of  the  companjr  for  1898  the  net  pro- 
ceeds of  the  land  department  were  given  as  $3,624,712. u 

An  act  of  July  27,  1866,  chartered  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  Kailroad 
company,  which  was  to  build  from  Springfield,  Missouri,  to  the  Pacific 
coast  by  the  southern  route.15  As  allowed  by  the  charter  the  com- 
pany purchased  the  South  Pacific  road,  which  had  received  a  grant 
over  the  same  route  as  far  as  the  southern  boundary  of  Missouri.16  The 
road  was  to  be  constructed  by  July  4,  1878.  By  that  date  the  line  had 
been  built  from  Springfield  to  Vinita,  Indian  Territory.17  In  1886  the 
lands  opposite  the  uncompleted  portions  of  the  road  were  declared  for- 
feited.18 By  that  time  the  road  had  been  extended  to  Sapulpa  (76 
miles)  by  the  St.  Louis  and  San  Francisco  company,  and  from  near 
Albuquerque,  N.  M.,  to  the  Colorado  river  (559  miles)  by  the  Atchison, 
Topeka,  and  Santa  Fe  compauy.19  According  to  the  report  of  the  land 
office  there  have  been  patented  to  the  company  1,222,012  acres,  and  it 
was  estimated  that  3,476,041  acres  were  still  due.20  But  according  to 
the  report  of  the  railroad  commissioner  798,723  acres  only  have  been 
patented.21  Of  these  220,259  acres  had  been  sold  in  1S80  for  $623,369," 
while  by  1897  all  of  the  lands  which  the  company  reported  as  having 
received,  708,523  acres,  were  reported  as  sold.  The  total  receipts  from 
land  sales  had  been  $3,940,483,  but  during  the  previous  year  the  receipts 
had  only  been  $92.03,  while  the  expenses  were  $13,462. 12.23 

Section  18  of  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  act  authorized  a  connection 
with  the  Southern  Pacific  road  of  California  and  made  a  similar  grant 
to  that  road.24  Within  the  time  required  by  the  granting  act  there 
were  built  the  sections  of  the  road  between  San  Jose  and  Tres  Plnos, 
50  miles,  and  between  Huron  and  Mojave,  182  miles.25  The  line  was 
afterward  built   from  Mojave   to   the   state  line,   and  from  Huron   to 

12  Railroad  Commissioner,  Report,  1886,  595. 

13  Ibid.,  1895,  151. 

"Northern  Pacific  Railway  Company,  Report,  189S,  31. 

^Statutes  at  Large,  xiv,  292. 

16  Supra,  p.  115. 

"Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  807. 

"Statutes  at  Large,  xxiv,  123. 

19 Poor,  Railway  Manual,  18S8,  744-5. 

20  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  Report,  1897,  232,  223. 

21  Railroad  Commissioner,  Report,  1897,  105. 
22 Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  779. 
"Railroad  Commissioner,  Report,  1897,  105. 
-'Statutes  at  Large,  xiv,  299. 

25 Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  808. 

(386) 


SANBORN RAILROAD  LAND  GRANTS.  125 

Aclade.  In  1890  the  lands  along  the  portion  between  Tres  Pinos  and 
Aclade  were  forfeited.28  The  grant  to  the  Texas  Pacific  also  authorized 
the  Southern  Pacific  company  to  connect  with  the  Texas  Pacific  at 
the  Colorado  river.27  This  road  was  completed  January  23,  1878." 
On  account  of  this  grant  the  company  has  received  2,672,753  acres.29  In 
1880  it  had  sold  279,623  acres  for  $1,999,396.30  By  1886  there  had  been 
sold  961,950  acres  for  $3,467,681,  with  $2,472,541  due  on  time  sales."  In 
1897  the  company  reported  that  it  had  received  3,186,301  acres,  of  which 
3,544,970  acres  had  been  disposed  of.  The  total  receipts  from  the  lands 
had  been  $9,167,290,  while  $3,234,006  were  due  on  time  sales.  The  re- 
ceipts of  the  land  department  during  the  year  were  $73,773  and  the 
expenses  $30,326." 

The  Texas  and  Pacific  grant  was  made  March  3,  1871,  and  provided 
for  a  road  from  Marshall,  Texas,  to  San  Diego,  California,  via  El  Paso 
and  the  Colorado  river,  which  wTas  to  be  crossed  near  the  southern 
boundary  of  California.  The  road  was  to  be  built  within  ten  years," 
which  time  was  extended  to  May  2,  1882.  As  there  were  no  United 
States  lands  in  Texas  the  grant  only  began  at  El  Paso,  and  the  com- 
pany had  not  built  to  that  point  when  the  time  for  the  completion  of 
the  road  expired.  This  was  due,  however,  to  the  fact  that  the  South- 
ern Pacific  company  had  built  east  from  Yuma  to  El  Paso,  without 
the  authorization  of  Congress.  The  Texas  Pacific  released  its  rights 
under  the  land  grant  to  the  Southern  Pacific,  but  in  1885  the  entire 
grant  was  forfeited." 

Section  23  of  the  act  granting  lands  to  the  Texas  Pacific  provided 
for  a  grant  to  the  New  Orleans,  Baton  Rouge,  and  Vicksburg  company 
for  a  road  from  New  Orleans,  via  Baton  Rouge  and  Alexandria,  to  con- 
nect with  the  Texas  Pacific.  The  road  was  to  be  constructed  by  March 
3,  1876.  The  eompanj-  located  its  line  from  New  Orleans  to  Baton 
Rouge  on  the  east  side  of  the  Mississippi,  and  thence  via  Alexandria 
and  Shreveport  to  the  Texas  line.  No  portion  of  the  road  was  con- 
structed by  the  company,  and  in  1880  it  assigned  to  the  New  Orleans 
Pacific,  a  company  which  was  building  a  line  from  Texas  to  Baton 
Rouge  over  the  same  route  as  the  other  company,  but  which  had  built 

28  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  Report,  1891,  39. 
25 Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  929. 

29  Ibid.,  1S97,  232. 

27 Statutes  at  Large,  xvi,  579. 

'"Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  779. 

"Railroad  Commissioner,  Report,  1886,  621. 

32  Ibid.,  1897,  152. 

83 Statutes  at  Large,  xvl,  573. 

"  Ibid.,  xxiii,  337. 

(387) 


126  BULLETIN    OE    THE    UNIVERSITY   OP   WISCONSIN. 

from  Baton  Kouge  to  Vicksburg  along  the  west  bank  of  the  Missis- 
sippi.35 

An  act  of  February  8,  1887,  forfeited  the  grant  on  the  east  side  of  the 
river  and  the  lands  opposite  to  portions  of  the  road  then  unconstructed 
by  the  New  Orleans  Pacific  prior  to  January  5,  1881,  the  date  of  the 
conveyance  from  the  New  Orleans,  Baton  Rouge,  and  Vicksburg.36 

The  company  has  received  9S0,587  acres  under  the  grant,  while  109.137 
acres  remain  unpatented."  In  1886  the  company  stated  that  no  sales 
had  been  made.  Since  then  the  company  has  failed  to  make  reports  on 
its  land  grant. 

86 Donaldson,   Public  Domain,  857-8. 

80  Statutes  at  Large,  xxiv,  391. 

37  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  Report,  1897,  232,  223. 


(3S8) 


SANBORN — RAILROAD  LAND  GRANTS.  127 


APPENDIX   B. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY. 

Sources. 

The  chief  source  for  the  history  of  land-grant  legislation,  is  the  re- 
port of  debates  in  Congress,  published  as  the  Congressional  Globe  from 
1833  to  1873,  and  as  the  Congressional  Record  from  1873  to  the  present 
time.  For  an  outline  of  the  proceedings  without  the  discussion,  the 
House  Journal  and  Senate  Journal  are  usually  more  accurate  and  have 
been  used  in  case  of  differences  in  the  reports.  In  connection  with  the 
debates  in  Congress,  I  have  consulted  many  documents,  such  as  commit- 
tee reports,  etc.,  which  appear  as  Reports  of  Committees  (House),  House 
Reports,  Senate  Reports,  House  Executive  Documents,  House  Miscel- 
laneous Documents,  House  Documents,  Senate  Executive  Documents, 
Senate  Miscellaneous  Documents,  and  Senate  Documents.  The  most 
important  public  documents  relating  to  the  public  domain  are  collected 
in  a  publication  edited  by  Thomas  Donaldson,  The  Public  Domain, 
"Washington,  1884.  Reference  has  been  made  to  the  documents  reprinted 
there  rather  than  to  the  original  reports  themselves,  as  they  seem  to  be 
substantially  accurate.  Messages  and  proclamations  of  the  presidents 
often  relate  to  land  grants  and  can  be  found  in  the  collection  edited  by 
James  D.  Richardson,  Compilation  of  the  Messages  of  the  Presidents, 
1789-1897,  10  vols.,  Washington,  1896-99. 

All  the  laws  are  published  in  the  Statutes  at  Large,  to  which  reference 
has  been  made.  The  land  laws  have  been  collected  in  two  sets,  one  con- 
taining those  of  a  general  and  permanent  character  in  one  volume,  and 
the  other  those  of  a  local  and  temporary  character  in  two  volumes. 
(H.  R.  Mis.,  Doc.  45,  parts  1,  2,  and  3,  47th  Cong.,  2d  session).  Land 
grant  acts  are  in  the  latter  collection,  arranged  chronologically  under 
the  different  states. 

For  Appendix  A,  a  wide  range  of  sources  has  been  used.  Poor's 
Manual  of  the  Railroads  of  the  United  States  has  been  of  great  service. 
Decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  and  of  the  various 
state  courts  often  give  the  history  of  roads  receiving  grants.  When  the 
matter  came  before  Congress  the  reports  of  the  Senate  and  House 
committees  are  of  great  value.    Various  local  and  railroad  histories  have 

(389) 


128  BULLETIN    OF    THE    UNIVERSITY    OF    WISCONSIN. 

been  used,  care  being  taken  in  each  case  to  test  their  accuracy.  The 
reports  of  the  Auditor  of  Railway  Accounts,  later  the  Railroad  Commis- 
sioner, contain  reports  of  the  operations  of  the  land  departments  of 
many  of  the  land-grant  roads.  Of  course  the  onljr  sources  for  the  statis- 
tics of  land  sales  are  the  accounts  kept  by  the  companies,  and  all  esti- 
mates are  based  on  the  reports  concerning  their  land  to  boards  and 
commissioners.  The  danger  of  inaccuracy  is  increased  the  further  the 
report  used  is  from  these  original  sources. 

Secondary  Works. 

No  study  of  the  history  of  railroad  land  grants  had  as  yet  appeared.' 
General  histories  have  neglected  the  subject  and  little  is  given  in  the 
general  accounts  of  the  public  domain.  Of  these  general  accounts  the 
best  is  that  of  Sato,  History  of  the  Land  Question  in  the  United  States, 
in  the  Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies  in  Historical  and  Political 
Science  for  1886.  The  article  by  Worthington  C.  Ford,  Public  Lands  of 
the  United  States,  in  Lalor,  Cyclopaedia,  volume  III,  is  good  and  brief. 
The  historical  part  of  Donaldson's  Public  Domain  must  be  used  with 
caution,  but,  on  some  points,  is  the  only  available  account. 

Very  few  histories  of  railroads  in  the  various  states  have  been  pub- 
lished. Mention  may  be  made  of  Cary,  Organization  and  History  of  the 
Chicago,  Milwaukee,  and  St.  Paul  Railroad  Company  [Milwaukee,  1893]  ; 
and  B.  H.  Meyer,  History  of  Early  Railroad  Legislation  in  Wisconsin, 
Wisconsin  Historical  Collections,  Vol.  XIV,  206-300,  and  Early  General 
Railway  Legislation  in  Wisconsin,  1853-1874,  Transactions  Wisconsin 
Academy  of  Sciences,  Arts  and  Letters,  Vol.  VII,  Part  I,  337-338. 

Histories  of  the  Pacific  roads  have  appeared,  of  whieh  the  best  are 
Davis,  The  Union  Pacific  Raihvay,  and  White,  History  of  the  Union  Pa- 
cific Railway,  Economic  Studies  of  the  University  of  Chicago,  No.  2. 
H.  H.  Bancroft,  in  his  History  of  California,  volume  VII,  has  an  excel- 
lent chapter  on  the  various  projects  advanced  for  the  road. 

The  administrative  and  legal  side  of  the  grants  have  been  treated 
in  books  on  railway  law.  The  best  of  these,  as  far  as  this  feature  is  con- 
cerned, is  that  of  B.  K.  and  W.  F.  Elliott,  Treatise  on  the  Law  of  Rail- 
roads. 4  vols.,  Indianapolis  and  Kansas  City,  1897.  Rorer,  Treatise  on 
the  Law  of  Railways,  2  vols.,  Chicago,  1884,  give  a  less  complete  ac- 
count. 

It  has  not  seemed  advisable  to  repeat  here  the  references  to  general 
secondary  authorities  cited  in  the  notes.    Outside  of  the  public  records 

1  A  summary  of  the  present  monograph  was  given  in  a  paper  read  before  the 
Wisconsin  Academy  of  Sciences,  Arts,  and  Letters  and  published  in  its  Transac- 
tions, Vol.  XII,  Part  I,  306-16. 

(390) 


SANBORN — RAILROAD  LAND  GRANTS.  129 

and  periodical  literature  there  is  little  relating  to  grants  of  lands  for 
railroads.  On  the  passage  of  the  Illinois  Central  bill  there  is  an  ac- 
count coming  indirectly  from  Douglas,  published  in  Cutts,  Brief  Treatise 
on  Constitutional  and  Party  Questions.2  which  is  so  inaccurate  that  I 
have  rejected  it  altogether.  As  this  has  commonly  been  received  as 
authoritative,  a  few  of  its  mistakes  will  be  pointed  out.  The  state- 
ment is  made  by  Douglas  that  between  the  sessions  of  the  thirtieth  and 
thirty-first  Congresses  he  made  an  agreement  with  the  directors  of  the 
Mobile  and  Ohio  road  by  which  he  was  to  incorporate  a  grant  to  that 
road  in  the  Illinois  Central  bill,  and  in  return  the  legislatures  of  Ala- 
bama and  Mississippi  would  instruct  their  Senators  and  Representa- 
tives, who  had  before  opposed  the  Illinois  Central  grant,  to  support  the 
bill.  Douglas  said:  "The  bill,  when  first  introduced,  had  been  opposed 
by  the  Senators  from  Mississippi,  Davis  and  Foote,  on  the  ground  of 
its  unconstitutionality,  and  also  by  the  Senators  from  Alabama,  King 
and  Clement,  and  by  the  members  of  the  House  from  those  states."  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  on  the  question  of  the  third  reading  of  the  bill,  Davis 
and  Foote  voted  in  favor  of  it,  and  the  Senators  from  Alabama,  Bagby 
and  Lewis  (not  King  and  Clement),  voted  against  it.3  On  a  similar 
question  in  the  House  three  of  the  Alabama  delegation  voted  against  the 
bill  and  four  did  not  vote,  while  of  the  Representatives  from  Mississippi 
two  voted  for  and  one  against  the  bill  and  one  did  not  vote.4  Nor  do  the 
laws  of  Mississippi  and  Alabama  contain  any  resolution  instructing  a 
vote  in  favor  of  the  grant. 

The  account  given  by  Douglas  of  the  final  consideration  of  the  bill 
in  the  House  is  as  follows:  "When  the  bill  stood  at  the  head  of  the 
calendar  in  the  House,  Mr.  Harris,  of  Illinois,  moved  to  clear  the  Speak- 
er's table,  and  the  motion  was  carried.  We  had  counted  up  and  had 
fifteen  majority  for  the  bill  pledged  to  support  it.  *  *  *  The  House 
proceeded  to  clear  the  Speaker's  table,  and  the  clerk  announced  'A  bill 
granting  lands  to  the  state  of  Illinois,'  etc.  A  motion  was  immediately 
made  by  the  opposition,  which  brought  on  a  vote,  and  we  found  our- 
selves in  a  minority  of  one.  *  *  *  Harris,  quick  as  thought,  pale 
and  white  as  a  sheet,  jumped  to  his  feet  and  moved  that  the  House  go 
into  committee  of  the  whole  on  the  slavery  question.  There  were  fifty 
members  ready  with  speeches  on  this  subject,  and  the  motion  was  car- 
ried." What  really  happened  on  July  31  was  as  follows:  Inge,  of  Ala- 
bama, (not  Harris),  moved  to  proceed  to  the  business  on  the  Speaker's 
table.    The  Illinois  bill  came  up  and  Richardson,  of  Illinois,  moved  the 

2For  a  reprint  of  this  see  Donaldson,  Public  Domain,  262-4. 

'Globe,  1st  sess.  30th  Cong.,  723. 

4  House  Journal,  1st  sess.  30th  Cong.,  1270. 

(391) 


130  BULLETIN    OF   THE    UNIVERSITY    OF   WISCONSIN. 

previous  question,  and  Jones,  of  Tennessee,  moved  to  lay  the  bill  on  the 
table.  Duer,  of  Connecticut,  (not  Harris),  moved  to  go  into  committee 
of  the  whole,  which  was  carried  by  a  vote  of  102  to  71.s  No  other  vote 
had  been  taken. 

Douglas  then  explains  how  the  bill  was  reached  again  after  it  had  gone 
to  the  foot  of  the  calendar  by  the  vote  to  go  into  committee  of  the  whole. 
"It  occurred  to  me  that  the  same  course  pursued  with  other  bills  would 
place  them,  each  in  turn,  at  the  foot  of  the  calendar,  and  thus  bring 
the  Illinois  bill  at  the  head.  *  *  *  The  motion  to  clear  the  table, 
and  go  into  committee  of  the  whole  on  the  slavery  question,  would  each 
have  to  be  made  ninety-seven  times,  and  while  the  first  motion  might 
be  made  by  some  of  our  friends,  or  the  friends  of  other  bills,  it  would 
not  do  for  us,  or  any  one  known  to  be  a  warm  friend  or  connected  with 
us  to  make  the  second  motion,  as  it  would  defeat  the  other  bills  and 
alienate  from  us  the  support  of  their  friends.     I  thought  a  long  while 

and  finally  fixed  on  Mr.  ,  who,  though  bitterly  opposed  to  me 

(politically),  yet  I  knew  to  be  my  personal  friend.    Living  up  in , 

he  supported  the  bill,  but  did  not  care  much  one  way  or  the  other 
whether  it  passed  or  not,  voted  for  it  but  was  lukewarm."  So  an  ar- 
rangement was  made  with  Mr. by  which  he  made  the  necessary 

motion  to  go  into  committee  of  the  whole,  and  thus  forced  the  bill  to- 
the  head  of  the  calendar.  But  between  July  31  and  September  17,  when 
the  bill  was  passed,  the  only  person  who  could  correspond  to  Douglas* 
statement  made  such  a  motion  seventeen  times.  This  was  Bagly,  of 
Virginia,  who  was  not  opposed  to  Douglas  politically  and  did  not  vote 
in  favor  of  the  bill.    No  one  else  made  the  motion  with  any  frequency. 

The  fact  that  these  accounts  are  based  on  conversations  with  Douglas, 
some  nine  years  after  the  occurrences,  and  not  written  out  in  their 
final  form  by  Cutts  until  much  later  would  also  tend  to  discredit  their 
accuracy.  Douglas  probably  gave  the  facts  as  well  as  he  would  recol- 
lect them,  but  the  lapse  of  time  was  too  great  for  anything  approaching 
exactness. 

lHouse  Journal,  1st  sess.  31st  Cong.,  1490. 


(o'92) 


73 3 -3  VI 
5-c 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS-URBANA 
336  14SA54C  pnno 

CONGRESSIONAL  GRANTING  ,N  AID  OF 


3  0112  025292779 


